Thinking Seriously
In a a blog post, Pete Boettke presents some interesting and innocuous ruminations about paradigm shifts and progress in science and, then, suddenly, after a few paragraphs, makes a startling categorical claim:
"Amateur economists, individuals without advanced degrees, or those not teaching in research universities, who spend their time writing in blogs or in journals not listed by SSCI cannot pull off the desired paradigm shift. This is a form of economic discourse, perhaps even an important one, but not one that matters scientifically. . . Only outsiders with a claim to inside legitimacy can move ideas from being outside to those that are now inside."
Thus speaketh the Pope of Austrian Economics. As a humble vocational economist on the outside looking in and whose work counts for naught scientifically, I would like to demur from this apodictic and a priori judgment.
The empirical evidence seems at best to be mixed on this point. Carl Menger was a mere journalist, amateur economist and an outsider even in the academic backwater that was then Austrian academia, when he published the book that would cause an international revolution in economic theory that ultimately destroyed both the British classical and German historicist paradigms. Likewise Boehm-Bawerk was ensconced in the backwater University of Innsbruck when he wrote the great Mengerian treatise that would catapult him to international fame and forever revolutionize the way economists thought about capital and interest while establishing Austrian economics as perhaps the leading theoretical paradignm before 1914. Contrariwise, the paradigm of the French liberal school, which had enjoyed unchallenged dominance in French economics for three-quarters of a century was overthrown almost overnight when in 1878 the French government began to establish chairs in economics in all Law Faculties in France and staffed them with outsider lawyers and economists sympatheetic to the German Historical school. These examples could easily be multiplied.
If one really wishes to think seriously about progress in science, he must abstain from off-the-cuff apriori judgments on blog sites and busy himself with sustained and careful study of the historical evidence. He then may render a considered opinion in an academic article or book. An exemplary model of such an endeavor and a good place to start examining the evidence is Guido Huelsmann's great biography of Mises, The Last Knight.of Liberalism.
Comments (84)
Wow . . . THIS (aging) amateur economist certainly takes heart from this riposte.
Published: October 23, 2007 9:40 PM
So, is Dr Boettke "inside" ? Or "Outside"? Personally, I am often enriched by the insights I gain from casual/amateur postings in mises blog. I am also constantly amazed by the intellectual garbage that I find in academic papers published by "prestigious" university dons. Austrian thinking lets me know the difference.
Published: October 23, 2007 11:04 PM
I think that Boettke, in his claim that "insider legitimacy" is needed to carry out a paradigm shift, has been influenced by Colander, Holt, and Rosser, The Changing Face of Economics.
Published: October 23, 2007 11:20 PM
Cliques are so high school...
Published: October 23, 2007 11:38 PM
This is a fun game.
Ronald Coase. Insider or outsider?
Tjalling Koopmans. Insider or outsider?
Abraham Wald. Insider or outsider?
John Nash. Insider or outsider?
John von Neumann. Insider or outsider?
Let's try biology.
Ronald Fisher. Insider or outsider?
Charles Darwin. Insider or outsider?
Physics anyone?
Albert Einstein. Insider or outsider?
How about philosophy?
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Insider or outsider?
What a fun game this is!
Published: October 23, 2007 11:41 PM
I agree that there is a tendency for academics to think that outsiders aren't capable of the same accomplishments. You'll find it in all fields of study. I guess they're protecting their turf.
Published: October 24, 2007 12:08 AM
Do I understand this correctly(?) Is Boettke really suffering from NIH(Not invented here)?
If so, he should rethink. NIH has led to calcification of many once-great institutions/bureauacracies. The case study(-ies) lists of the world's business schools would be much curtailed, but for the phenomenon.
Published: October 24, 2007 12:43 AM
Salerno,
It's very telling that none of your examples are from even the last 50-60 years of economic intellectual history.
Published: October 24, 2007 4:42 AM
Boettke: "Amateur economists...cannot pull off the desired paradigm shift."
This just proves that "professional" economists care more about authority than truth.
Published: October 24, 2007 8:07 AM
A recent example? Thomas Friedman of the NYT--pop writer, highly fashionable, theoretically thin but always entertaining--dropped by the university the other day to pick up some prize money as part of a prestigious lecture award. He was wined and dined and fawned over by throngs of tenured, full professors who assign his books in their classrooms, and he spoke in the coliseum to vast numbers and his every word became the talk of the town for days on end. You were there or you were square.
This doesn't strike me as unusual at all; quite the contrary. There is a strong tendency among the "insiders" to chase "outside" opinion wherever it goes, provide that this opinion is favored by political and media elites. Just imagine the reception Al Gore would get!
Whether it leads to a paradigm shift or not is incidental.
What's more, this behavior is far more common today than in the past, now that the universities and their missions have been thoroughly democratized.
So Joe's point is actually stronger in light of recent history. It only takes a tour through a university bookstore to see what really drives ideas on campus.
Published: October 24, 2007 8:08 AM
Might as well take it for what it's worth, everyone. The implication is clear: anyone wiothout the credential who comes up with an innovation in economics and sends it around, even if it defends Murray himself, might as well buy the Greatest Hits of Ted Nugent on the outset.
"Cat scratch fever..."
Published: October 24, 2007 9:36 AM
I think the paradigm shift thing is a little easier than Kuhn and Boettke believe. Keynes clearly wanted to be popular far more than he wanted to be a great academic. He simply lached on to the popular economics of the day and gave it academic credibility. The paradigm: find out what's popular and proclaim it loudly! Of course, you need some of Keyne's charm and ability to communicate.
I'm much less worried about a paradigm shift in academia than one in the general public. I'd like to see more Austrians communicating with the public on issues, especially the public that doesn't attend college, because they outnumber academics by 10,000:1, and they vote. Besides, if you can cause a paradigm shift with the general public, I believe the paradigm shift will take place in adacemia because academics aren't immune to the lure of fame.
Austrians might take a page from the Creationist playbook. Creationists have caused very little stir in academia over the evolution/creation debate. In academia, creationists hold a smaller position than do Austrian economists. So for the past 30 years creationist academics have concentrated on communicating with the public and they are responsible for the waning of confidence in evolution among the public. As a result, more academics are paying attention to creationism.
Published: October 24, 2007 12:44 PM
Boettke is a sharp fellow, but he might have it exactly backwards. It is NORMAL SCIENCE that requires the co-operation of ensconced professors in tenured chairs. A PARADIGM SHIFT, on the other hand, happens at the margin of respectability, and then, of a sudden, the younger generation switches, to the discomfiture of the ensconced, tenured professors. And the new tenured professors take over the respectability, the Mandate of Heaven in the Academy, so to speak.
As for creationism, beware. Creationists in America have tended to believe in a Young Earth, and were mocked by scientists for years because of this. All the evidence goes against the Young Earth Theory as bequeathed by a literal interpretation of Genesis. But by shifting emphasis to Intelligent Design and making vague hand-waving gestures about the actual age of the earth, many creationists have gained some ground, completely shifting away from an untenable theory (Young Earth) and towards the criticism of a still developing theory (neo-Darwinian natural selection theory as applied to the evolution of complex systems).
I hope proponents of praxeological/subjectivist/catallactic economics do not embrace anything so scientifically absurd as the Young Earth Theory, or engage in as duplicitous a scientific stance as have many in the ID advocacy movement.
Published: October 24, 2007 1:58 PM
What's ironic about Lord Keynes is that he never had a Ph. D., and that his degree was in classics. He never had any credential in economics at all. This point, to be fair, may be one of the underlying motivators in the shoo-out-the-amateur campaign. There is a good case to be made that Keynes the amateur messed the field up because he was an amateur.
Published: October 24, 2007 2:04 PM
Keynes had a degree in classics ? I thought it was in mathematics.
Published: October 24, 2007 2:46 PM
Salerno, what do you think the probability is that you or other outsiders like you will cause a "paradigm shift" within the next decade or two? Are you willing to bet money on it? For better or worse, I think Boettke is right.
Fundamentalist, like I told you before most of the public, including those who reject evolution, are completely unaware of the existence of the work of creationists. The responsibility lies with promiscuous teleology. Imitating creationists is about the worst possible strategy I could think of for Austrians.
Published: October 24, 2007 4:20 PM
I'm sure Fundy can point out that we should all read Hayek, and that Hayek said that any "successful" doctrine needs "second hand dealers in ideas." (I do agree with Hayek on this.)
Published: October 24, 2007 5:38 PM
Maybe Keynes provides the clue to the next shift. John Maynard may not have been academically trained as an economist, but his father, John Neville, was.
So maybe the next paradigm shift will be pushed through by David D. Friedman, son of Nobel Laureate Milton. He, too, has never received "official" training in econ. But the oil of anointing was none the less bestowed.
Which great Austrian economist had economist children? Mises: no children. Rothbard: no children. Lachmann? Kirzner?
On a serious note, there have been a number of father/son economists, haven't there? Walras/Walras; Fetter/Fetter; Clark/Clark; Walker/Walker. Who am I missing?
Published: October 24, 2007 5:43 PM
twv: "All the evidence goes against the Young Earth Theory as bequeathed by a literal interpretation of Genesis."
If you knew anything about scientific creationism, you wouldn't have made that statement. I'm surprised by how many critics of creationism know nothing about it, have never read a book on it, yet consider themselves experts.
The scientific evidence favors a young earth; the consensus of scientists is against it, just as the scientific evidence is against human-caused global warming while the consensus favors it. In economics, the scientific evidence favors Austrian econ while the consensus disapproves.
BTW, ID and creationism have very little to do with each other. ID is an attempt by scientists to develop the tools to distinguish between organic design and intelligent design. Some ID people are creationists and some aren't. Creationism is a negative and a positive science. On the negative side, scientists demonstrate that evolution violates the laws of physics and biology. On the positive side, they show that the evidence favors a young earth and the Biblical description of creation. The best intro I have found to creation science is "In the Beginning" which is available in pdf at www.creationscience.com. The author taught at the US Air Force Academy and holds a PhD from MIT.
TGGP: "Imitating creationists is about the worst possible strategy I could think of for Austrians."
30 years ago when I first became interested in creation science (having been fully brainwashed by evolution), there were few followers. The majority of even fundamentalist christians rejected it. But the movement has grown rapidly and can boast of a large number of academics as well as lay people. Today, only about 50% of Americans accept evolution as true. 30 years ago I would guess that the percentage was closer to 90%.
Creationists have accomplished this by quietly publishing magazines for the public, though they have some journals for the academics to debate the science in. In the early days they debated evolutionists on college campuses, but few evolutionists will debate them any more. Austrian econ has been around a lot longer than creation science, but hasn't enjoyed the growth that creation science has. You could do worse than following their example.
My point in bringing up the success of creationism is that they worked through the public first and the academics followed.
I think one problem with promoting Austrian econ is that so many have a false view of academics. They are viewed as being unbiased seekers of truth, unmoved by the lure of money or fame. But they're just as human as the rest of us. I think Keynesian econ took off because Keynes adopted a form of econ thinking popular with politicians, businessmen and educated people. It's popularity caused young economists to follow because they are more susceptible to the lure of fame than older people.
Austrian econ, in spite of its superiority in every aspect, has failed to find an audience among either academics or the public after more than a century. I think it's because the strategy has been to work within academia. After a century of failure (at salemanship, not econ), don't you think it's time to try something else, anything else? Why keep trying the same failed strategy for promoting Austrianism and expecting different results?
Published: October 24, 2007 6:22 PM
On a serious note, there have been a number of father/son economists, haven't there? Walras/Walras; Fetter/Fetter; Clark/Clark; Walker/Walker. Who am I missing?
The "dithering Mills".
Published: October 24, 2007 6:30 PM
Peter Boettke concluded his blog posting with these words:
'For me the challenge to Austrian economists is to achieve progress on both fronts -- that of individual careers and that of the intellectual movement. Careerism without a concern for the fate of ideas is empty, and self-satisfaction over intellectual purity without regard to careers or wider spread acceptance among those who matter most in the world of ideas is self-defeating. Only outsiders with a claim to inside legitimacy can move ideas from being outside to those that are now inside. The essential tension remains, for me, the critical issue to grapple with when one thinks seriously about how to advance an alternative scientific paradigm.'
This sounds like an encouraging stance, one that recognizes the challenges faced by academia and by persons with a solid knowledge base but without the academic credentials.
Predicting the influence of the internet on education and theoretical development has limitations since the future is unknown. Consider it as an uncertainty.
The potential for upheaval in more domains of what we are familiar with (who knows what else will be vastly different?) increases the uncertainty of how things will be accomplished.
I can accept the ceteris paribus statement of Peter Boettke but I am not limited to that scenario. I think change in these parameters of 'alternative scientific paradigms' is happening fairly rapidly.
Published: October 24, 2007 6:34 PM
Some ID people are creationists and some aren't.
I call bullshit.
What proponent of Intelligent Design do you know who does not also believe in Creation. Name one.
Published: October 24, 2007 6:35 PM
Keynesian economics is confusing to me. We are currently going over the macroeconomic theories involved. Even though I understand them, they make little sense, and I find it hard to believe most economists actually bought into this stuff! Whether the tactics used by creationists are the ones for Austrians to imitate is debatable, but given the coherence and correctness of many Austrian theories, I do think we suffer from a PR problem.
Published: October 24, 2007 6:41 PM
David: "What proponent of Intelligent Design do you know who does not also believe in Creation. Name one."
Francis Collins, head of the human genome project and Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box."
Published: October 24, 2007 7:12 PM
BTW, Dr. Collins wrote " The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
Published: October 24, 2007 7:14 PM
Anthony, I had a similar problem with Keynesian macroecon. I got a good grade in the class because I could regurgitate what the text book said, but it made so little sense that I concentrated on micro. Of course, the eternal complaint against mainstream macro is that it's divorced from microecon. The problem is that it's highly aggregated, and therefore very abstract. Have you seen the section in Dr. Reisman's book on Keynes? It's very good.
I'm very frustrated with Austrian econ because I'm convinced of its truth, yet it has made very little progress toward being accepted in either academia or among the public. Yet Austrian academics seem content to talk to each other and their students. The nation desperately needs its voters to grasp at least the basics of Austrian econ.
Published: October 24, 2007 7:20 PM
Francis Collins, head of the human genome project and Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box."
According to one of the reviews at Amazon, Collins denounces both ID and Creationism in his book.
And as for Behe, he wisely avoids questions about creation and focuses on attacking evolution. There is nothing wrong with that as a strategy - evolution should stand or fall on its own - but it is only a strategy. It doesn't mean Behe doesn't believe the world was created. Who do you think Behe would say is the intelligent designer?
Published: October 24, 2007 8:06 PM
Fundamentalist, given that I am doing a mainstream econ course, I am actually thinking of heading first into Rothbard's MES or Reisman's Capitalism, and then later Human Action. Apparently the former two are an easier transition for a student of neoclassical econ, and provide some pithy critiques of the dominant paradigm.
Published: October 24, 2007 8:15 PM
Fundamentalist, you guess 90% of people believed in evolution 30 years ago, but you don't know. I guess you're wrong. Even if you were right about the change, you didn't establish that creationists are responsible for it. What journals do creationists have? If I recall correctly, the Discovery Institute has published a grand total of zero peer-reviewed papers.
Published: October 24, 2007 8:47 PM
David: "Who do you think Behe would say is the intelligent designer?"
I thought you were an expert on creationism and ID, after all, you've read a couple of book reviews. Why don't you try reading the book and see? I happen to know who Behe thinks is the intelligent designer.
"Collins denounces both ID and Creationism in his book..."
Yep. All you need to know you can find in a book review. Why don't you read the book and see what Dr. Collins really believes?
TGGP: "you guess 90% of people believed in evolution 30 years ago, but you don't know. I guess you're wrong. Even if you were right about the change, you didn't establish that creationists are responsible for it."
I haven't found any surveys from the period, so you're right, I don't know. But I know that religious people were among the biggest opponents in the early days. The non-religious definately weren't creationists, and if the majority of religious people opposed creation science, who does that leave? As for who is responsible for the growing acceptance of creationism in the past 30 years, who would you credit?
Published: October 24, 2007 10:30 PM
Anthony: "I am actually thinking of heading first into Rothbard's MES or Reisman's Capitalism..."
You might consider Garrison's book first. It's shorter and easier to understand than the others.
Published: October 24, 2007 10:32 PM
TGGP: "What journals do creationists have?"
http://www.nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html
Published: October 24, 2007 10:44 PM
@Kristian Joensen: According to Wikipedia and a cursory Googling, we were both right. Keynes got his undergrad degree in mathematics and classics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes#Education
Two interesting aspects about Lord Keynes' later life are:
a) "For medical reasons, Keynes and [his wife Lydia] Lopokova were unable to have children." (from the same Wikipedia bio that I linked to above)
b) His attendance record at the House of Lords was quite low.
Published: October 24, 2007 11:35 PM
Is this really the correct forum to debate ID and creationism? Would you please stay on topic?
Published: October 25, 2007 12:21 AM
Ha ha, Fundamentalist! The ho-hum Creationist argument goes to the tune of "this doodad seems too complex to occur naturally therefore God designed it and evolution is disproved". Yet any Austrian here could disproved such Creationist nonsense and show how evolution works through the free market. The paradox that stumps a lot of people is that the less the market is planned the better is does. When the marketplace tries to have a intelligence designer to oversee it, the marketplace goes down the drainpipe. When the market is freed up it flows back to maximal efficiency. Hence just as the marketplace works and evolves over time thanks to micro-planning by the individual so too does life change and evolve via the individual plant/animal/other living their life the best they can within their environment.
Published: October 25, 2007 12:39 AM
Mises actually advanced praxeological arguments against the existence of God. :P
Published: October 25, 2007 4:59 AM
James: "Is this really the correct forum to debate ID and creationism? Would you please stay on topic?"
My intention in brining up creationism was to use its success in creating a paradigm shift as an example that Austrians might follow. Austrians and libertarians need to change the PR strategy because the current isn't working. But I will debate anyone who wants to discuss the science.
Published: October 25, 2007 8:06 AM
TLWP:"The ho-hum Creationist argument goes to the tune of "this doodad seems too complex to occur naturally therefore God designed it and evolution is disproved".
The argument that some things are too complex to occur naturally is the ID argument, not the creation science argument. You guys seem to think they're the same thing when there is a huge amount of difference between them. Oversimplified, the ID argument says that some things in nature are organized naturally according the to laws of physics, such as snow flakes. But who would look at Mt. Rushmore and declare that the faces are the work of nature? ID simply wants to find a scientific way to distinguish between complex organization in nature and that which can only be explained by intelligent design.
Atheists try to eliminate design as part of the debate by defining it away. As Hayek argues, it's easy to define the terms of any arguement in such a way that one side automatically wins. That's what evolutionists and atheists try to do.
Published: October 25, 2007 12:22 PM
Mr. Fundamentalist charges that I know nothing about creationism. Well, would it shock him to learn that I grew up on creationism, and read its literature? Over a period of years I grew deeply embarrassed by creationist positions, and abandoned the doctrine. For reasons of evidence alone. Not belief in Darwinian theory. (Which is another level of analysis.)
Fundamentalist is right, though, at least up to the point of relating paradigm shifts. But I've a different take on all this.
As I see it, creationism and the Young Earth assertion, and to some degree I.D., are believed because people WANT to believe in a deity. There's scant evidence for a young earth; what I've seen trotted out as evidence is idiotic and not believable. But all creationists and most I.D. advocates believe in a deity, and that comes first for them, clouding their minds to the nature of the evidence at hand, desperately searching for "reasons to believe." That has been my experience in my many discussions with such folk, and in my reading. Hey, I grew up as a Christian fundamentalist/evangelical, and I do know the milieu.
This is relevant to the issue of paradigm shift in economics because the mainstream has been greatly affected by wishful thinking regarding the state.
It is simply the case that the state is an amazingly effective organization allowing the transfer of wealth, privilege, and power. And, because social causation is such a complex affair, it is possible to bury prejudice in a mess of Ptolemaically complex (but bad) theory.
How to break this Ptolemaic Paradigm in economics?
It may be worth considering how the stranglehold of religious dogma was broken by the evidence and theory that arose in the 19th century regarding geology and biology -- How was creationism overturned at that time?
The primary thing was evidence: the evidence of layers upon layers of rock with fossils of plants and animals that looked almost nothing like what we could see alive. This evidence alone was enough for many early evolutionists to cook up theories to explain it (see Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin, for instance). When Charles Darwin carefully laid out his evidence, his analogies, and his argument, a paradigm shift happened remarkably quickly. So the secondary thing was theory.
It seems to me that we should promote a general acceptance of generally agreed-upon facts . . . to the effect that government works best at helping only some at the expense of many others. And then offer the theory that would explain why this is the case.
As for modern creationists? I sadly shake my head.
The parallel I draw, though, is a paradigm shift understood as an advance on biased acceptance of ideas. Creationism is believed against evidence, in support of a deity for which we have no direct evidence at all. Similar to this is statism: Statist economic theory is believed, in part, because statist policy can favor some at the expense of many, and it is the economist's role to provide a justification for this con job. The position is rewarded. The culture gives many psychic rewards merely to contemplate the con job as a holy war for Social Justice, even if justice is the actual victim. (The underlying, secret belief is that everyone tries to become a member of the few who get the upper hand; the public philosophy is that all are helped. It is an esoteric/exoteric distinction, common in cults, as Murray Rothbard pointed out.)
Because of the nature of complexity, and the complexity of human psychology, it is obvious that people can get caught up in these errors (creationism and statism) with putatively good motives.
The only way out of the trap is good science. Falsification of theory, the insistence on sticking to good evidence, these are essential. But for a paradigm shift, it also requires people to believe things against the grain of their biases.
And that's not easy, when many groups of people bolster biases every moment of their existence. Churches, yes; that's obvious. Less obvious are the cadres of economists, politicians, journalists . . .
To take a step back and address another matter brought up in this string: As for I.D., I can think of at least one person who may not be a deity worshiper at heart: secular humanist and libertarian philosopher Antony Flew declared himself (a few years ago) a proponent of I.D. He bought the "irreducible complexity" gambit. Flew hastened to add that this did not justify Christianity in any way. Or Judaism. He is a philosopher, and at most might concede some Unknown God.
For my part, if I were convinced of I.D., I would argue that it does not imply a deity in any way. It merely implies something like the black monoliths from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Finally, I love that phrase "the dithering Mills"! Thanks, Mr. Bratton.
Published: October 25, 2007 1:47 PM
twv: "The only way out of the trap is good science. Falsification of theory, the insistence on sticking to good evidence, these are essential."
So how is you strategy for advancing Austrian econ different from what Austrians have done for a century? It seems to me you're proposing more of the same while hoping for different results.
Published: October 25, 2007 2:41 PM
Fundamentalist, Austrians don't believe economics theories can be falsified by observing evidence. So twv is suggesting a very different tack.
Published: October 25, 2007 3:40 PM
TGGP:"Austrians don't believe economics theories can be falsified by observing evidence. So twv is suggesting a very different tack."
How does that help promote a paradigm shift with either academics or the public?
Published: October 25, 2007 4:05 PM
Fundy> As Hayek argues, it's easy to define the terms of any arguement in such a way that one side automatically wins. That's what evolutionists and atheists try to do.
That is an absolutely stunning piece of "logic." You use Hayek, an evolutionist, to poo-poo evolutionary theory. The more you write, the more I am a real believer that you are quite honest when you say you find Hayek "difficult reading." You still don't know what he was saying, and maybe if you did you would stop recommending him. The chapter Between Instinct and Reason was all about the rules of interpersonal conduct developing in an evolutionary way.
Now "evolutionary" might not be a very descriptive term for "paradigm shift." I don't think it is. But that is okay, since we have punctuated equilibria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibria
Published: October 25, 2007 5:05 PM
greg: "The chapter Between Instinct and Reason was all about the rules of interpersonal conduct developing in an evolutionary way."
One of the things I found very fascinating about "Fatal Conceit" was the strong impression I had when I finished it that if Hayek had turn the reasoning he used to demolish socialism toward the theory of evolution, he would have demolished it as well. I find it odd that someone of his brilliance in economics could accept evolution without question. But I see similar circumstances when people aren't interested in a particular subject they don't put much effort into it. Evolution was a useful tool for explaining the behavior of free markets, it was the scientific consensus, and the question of its validity didn't seem to interest him, so Hayek just accepted uncritically.
BTW, I use several evolutionists to argue against evolution. One of my favorites is Roger Lewin, former editor of a British Journal of Science, who wrote "Bones of Contention." In the book, he shows how embarassingly thin the evidence for evolution is, while still remaining an evolutionist himself.
Published: October 25, 2007 5:58 PM
"Fundamentalist, Austrians don't believe economics theories can be falsified by observing evidence. So twv is suggesting a very different tack."
Unless one realizes that economic theories can also be falsified by demonstrating incoherence and illogical elements within them. But it is not entirely true that Austrian theories are purely logical; they do contain some inductive elements as well, and for these empirical evidence is useful. I prefer Rothbard to Mises when it comes to method. That said, given that most mainstream economists, at least in principle, believe that empirical refutation of their theories should lead them to abandon them, this is a course open to an Austrian regardless of his own views on method.
Published: October 25, 2007 6:26 PM
I find it odd that someone of his brilliance in economics could accept evolution without question.
I have read a lot of Hayek, and I am aware of no evidence that he did such a thing. That is just your strawman. A more likely explanation (of his lack of writing justifying an evolutional perspective) is that he didn't care to stare down the rabbit hole as a result of weak provocation from creationists.
There is historical evidence that provides inductive backing of his perspective. You are making nonsense claims.
Published: October 25, 2007 7:04 PM
twv: "The primary thing was evidence: the evidence of layers upon layers of rock with fossils of plants and animals that looked almost nothing like what we could see alive."
If you read "In the Beginning" on line at www.creationscience.com, you would see that the layers of sedimentary rock and fossils are the best evidence for a young earth. The layers of sediment could not possibly have been deposited over millions of years; they're too pure and the distinction between layers too clear. Had it taken millions of years, the layers would have been intermingled and contaminated. The purity and stratification of the layers are evidence of rapid formation and liquifaction, which sorts and stratifies sediment. The fossils, too, would have to have been buried rapidly, not over millions of years, or they would have deteriorated too much to leave a fossil.
Also, if evolution is true, where are the fossils of transitional creatures? There should be billions of them. Instead, after 150 years of searching, we have a handful of questionable pieces. And why has evolution stopped? We should be able to visit a wildlife refuge and see all kinds of transitional creatures, half man and half monkey, half reptile and half bird.
But the most basic problem with biological evolution is that science has proven for centuries that life only comes from living things; it's impossible to get living organisms from inanimate objects.
Most of the so-called evidence for evolution comes from changes between species. All Darwin demonstrated was the possibility of selective breeding, something farmers have done for generations. No one doubts that with selective breeding we can create new species of horses or dogs. But the evidence for the ability of selective breeding to turn a monkey into a man, or a lizard into a bird, is so slim as to be laughable. Again, see evolutionist Roger Lewin's "Bones of Contention."
I could write books on the scientific evidence against evolution and for creation, but real scientists have already done it. One of the best I've seen in the book at creationscience.com.
Why don't you guys stop with the lame insults and post some real evidence for evolution if you think you have any.
Published: October 25, 2007 10:55 PM
Fundy> Why don't you guys stop with the lame insults and post some real evidence for evolution if you think you have any.
aaahhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeee....... MY EYES!!!!!!! MY EYES!!!!!!!
=================================================
In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again.
The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down what seemed to be a very deep well.
...
Down, down, down. Would the fall never come to an end?
...
Down, down, down. There was nothing else to do,... 'Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?' and sometimes 'Do bats eat cats?' for, you see, as she couldn't answer either question, it didn't much matter which way she put it.
=================================================
Published: October 26, 2007 3:52 PM
Also, if evolution is true, where are the fossils of transitional creatures? There should be billions of them. Instead, after 150 years of searching, we have a handful of questionable pieces. And why has evolution stopped? We should be able to visit a wildlife refuge and see all kinds of transitional creatures, half man and half monkey, half reptile and half bird.
Everywhere you look - every animal you see - is a transitional form. The expectation of seeing things like "half reptile half bird" is a gross misunderstanding of evolution, which is what leads to the creationist crackpottery; no, you should certainly not expect to visit a wildlife park and see such things. Evolution doesn't happen in huge steps, monkeys giving birth to men, etc.
Published: October 26, 2007 8:10 PM
Even if evolution could be disproven from a theory to a preferred notion, how does that prove Creationism? Most of Creationists' time seems to be attacking evolution as if this somehow means Creationism is the only alternative. Hilariously, Creationist-critic Professor Ian Plimer pointed out that even if the world could be shown to be only 6,000 years old this still wouldn't prove Creationism (though it would make for a rather good argument).
Indeed just one Rome wasn't built in a day, why should there be absurd hybrid 'transitional forms'? Once again, to go back to economic analogies, taking a snapshot of Dell Computers or Microsoft every 5 years would show a functioning business not 'half a business', yet the businesses were still evolving and growing to the point they were both multinational companies.
Nonetheless:
But the most basic problem with biological evolution is that science has proven for centuries that life only comes from living things; it's impossible to get living organisms from inanimate objects.
Finding out the start of what is recognised as living would denifitely finish religious theories off.
Published: October 26, 2007 9:05 PM
Peter: "The expectation of seeing things like "half reptile half bird" is a gross misunderstanding of evolution..."
TLWP: "Indeed just one Rome wasn't built in a day, why should there be absurd hybrid 'transitional forms'?"
You guys don't know much about the theory of evolution do you? I guess I'll have to teach you evolution before you can appreciate creationism. Darwin predicted the existence of such fossils as proof of his theory. Paleontologists devote their careers to finding such fossils. The search for the missing link has been the holy grail for evolutionary scientists.
TLWP: "Even if evolution could be disproven from a theory to a preferred notion, how does that prove Creationism?"
If life can't occur by natural means alone, that suggests a Creator, doesn't it? It's very, very basic cause and effect reasoning: causes must be sufficient for the effect. For example, if you watch a car set a speed record, you wouldn't assume it had a two-stroke chain saw motor in it. In the same way, the effects that are the universe and mankind must have a cause greater than the effects.
TLWP: "Finding out the start of what is recognised as living would denifitely finish religious theories off."
It certainly would, and don't you think scientists have been trying? I recently read about a scientist who claims he will be able to create single-celled organisms that will live for a fraction of a second. It will be very interesting to see if he can do it.
Published: October 26, 2007 9:37 PM
Fundamentalist,
"Why don't you guys stop with the lame insults and post some real evidence for evolution if you think you have any."
No insults. I read about this when I was a child and found it on the Internet. A very basic example of natural selection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Published: October 27, 2007 12:30 AM
And what if the Creator is nothing like the one suggested in the Bible? What if the Creator created the universe billions of years ago and simply enjoyed his creation over the aeons and is not a morally pure agent nor has any inkling or caring for the human race? As I pointed out disproving evolution does not prove Biblical Creationism any more than showing your boat is not seaworthy makes mine suddenly seaworthy.
Published: October 27, 2007 12:44 AM
The search for the missing link has been the holy grail for evolutionary scientists.
Err...sorry, no. The "missing link" in the sense you (appear to) mean is creationist nonsense nobody in their right mind takes seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
What you fail to understand is that putting things into boxes ("bird", "reptile", etc.), drawing a line between them, comes from noting differences between them, not the other way around. Anything that fit the description "half bird half reptile" wouldn't be in either the "bird" or the "reptile" box, so you wouldn't recognize it as "half bird half reptile" but as some other category. Only when they're sufficiently different that you can put them in separately, clearly labeled boxes, do you recognize them as being different things - and then of course you can't find any "transitional species", by definition.
Published: October 27, 2007 1:19 AM
Peter: "The "missing link" in the sense you (appear to) mean is creationist nonsense nobody in their right mind takes seriously."
Gee, if Wikipedia says it, it must be right. Wrong! If one Wikipedia article is all you're willing to read, then you're obviously not interested in the subject. So I won't waste your time with much more evidence. But many evolutionists have recognized the problem of the lack of intermediate fossil evidence. Roger Lewin wrote a whole book about it, "Bones of Contention." And it was the main reason Stephen Gould invented punctuated equilibrium. The writer of the Wikipedia article cleary wants to define terms and assess evidence in such a way as to promote evolution, but more honest people disagree with him.
If you would read even a high school text book on evolution, you would know that the standard answer given for the lack of transitional fossils is the speculation that transitions from one type of animal to another took place rapidly and in isolated places. In other words, evolutionists are admitting they lack the evidence for their theory, but try to change the subject to why that evidence is missing. I find it strange that people would claim to be scientists when science requires evidence and they have so little of it. Sounds more like superstition to me.
Published: October 27, 2007 7:41 AM
Why are you hijacking the thread with your creationist impulses?
But many evolutionists have recognized the problem of the lack of intermediate fossil evidence... The writer of the Wikipedia article cleary wants to define terms and assess evidence in such a way as to promote evolution, but more honest people disagree with him.
"The problem" isn't the same "problem" you believe it is, or have assigned it to be. You've merely redefined "the problem" in a such a way as to promote creationism. "Honest creationist" is an oxymoron -- or perhaps I should say the fossil evidence has never shown the existance of one. Now there is your missing link.
So I won't waste your time with much more evidence.
Thank you. Do cats eat bats? Do bats eat cats? It doesn't seem to matter which way it is put because I am talking to a creationist.
Published: October 29, 2007 9:34 AM
IMHO: "I read about this when I was a child and found it on the Internet. A very basic example of natural selection."
That's a very good point. I remember that example, too. But what the moth experiment demonstrates is what is called microevolution, which is changes from one species to another. In layman's terms, it's selective breeding; the same thing ranchers did to create a breed of cattle without horns. No one doubts that microevolution, or selective breeding occurs; we see the results everywhere. Darwin's contribution was to suggest that selective breeding could not only create new species of the same animal, but create a completely new animal, which is called macroevolution.
Evolution promoters use a kind of bait and switch technique: they use selective breeding to prove that microevolution takes place, then claim that their microevolution proofs are also proof that macroevolution happens. Almost all of the evidence for evolution is micro; the evidence for macro is almost non-existent.
In the moth example, environmental changes might create all kinds of moths, maybe even plaid, but that's not what Darwin was interested in. He wanted a mechanism to create new animal forms, such as a bird from a reptile, or a man from a monkey.
TLWP: "As I pointed out disproving evolution does not prove Biblical Creationism..."
You're right. It doesn't. And I think I said that above. All creation science does is 1) prove the scientific impossibility of evolution, 2) prove the existence of an intelligent creator. As to what that creator may be like, that's an issue for comparative religion and philosophy, not science.
Published: October 29, 2007 6:51 PM
I have had a related conversation with Fundamentalist on the "Malthus and Mein Kampf" thread about creation science. Relevant portions excerpted here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/30/climate-science-a-fundamentalist-creation-science-approach-update.aspx
Funadmentalist, I'm curious if you have done any reading into "Symbiogenesis", which is an attempt at understanding how it is that complex cells (including our own) carry organelles such as mitichondria that have their own DNA and separately reproduce. Chloroplasts in plants are similar organelles. Symbiogenesis views these organelles as arising from originally independent bacteria that became a part of more complex cells through a process of endo symbiosis. Do creationists address this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
Published: October 30, 2007 4:31 AM
TT: "Symbiogenesis views these organelles as arising from originally independent bacteria that became a part of more complex cells through a process of endo symbiosis. Do creationists address this?"
I didn't have time to do an extensive search, but here is one creationist web site that talks about it: http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html
Published: October 30, 2007 7:23 PM
Here's another on symbiogenesis: http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
Published: October 30, 2007 7:35 PM
Here's a brief mention: The most popular evolution theories today are Neo-Darwinism (mutations plus selection) and Punctuated Equilibrium. Proponents of both these theories point out the impossibilities inherent in their competitor. Other (mostly discarded) theories of evolution include Maximum Entropy Production (MEP), Population Dynamics, Facilitated Variation, Semi-Meiosis, Niche Construction, Saltation, Panspermia, Metabolic Rate Theory, Zoogenesis, Lamarckism, Orthogenesis, Pangenesis, Gaia Theory, Evo-Devo, Symbiogenesis. There are many more.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5047/
Published: October 30, 2007 7:38 PM
There are a lot of misunderstandings even among people who should know what they're talking about, let alone creationists (who not only don't, but often deliberately misconstrue what little they do!). Strictly speaking, your use of "neo-Darwinism" is wrong (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism ); what you mean is the "modern evolutionary synthesis" referred to in that article. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium which points out that the latter is merely an insignificant "wrinkle" on the former, not a new and inconsistent thing.
Theories about how important various things in evolution, etc., have no impact on evolution as a process.
Published: October 30, 2007 8:13 PM
Heh heh. Notice how you have to accept portions of evolutionary theory whilst trying to disprove it? Micro-evolution doesn't prove macro-evolution? Interestingly, free-markets are micro-planned not macro-planned yet might appear macro-planned from a distance. After all, who says evolution has to have necessarily any thing 'macro' about it as though macro- actually implies some grand guide overseeing where evolution goes? Each organism does its best to adapt to its surroundings and many a species when well suited to an environment will not change even for millions of years. The fact that artificial breeding of pet canines and birds can allow for strange fast mutations that don't emerge in their wild counterparts can show how quickly organisms can change to suit a different environment. At the end of the day the main ingredient for evolution is time. Lots and lots of time.
Published: October 30, 2007 10:14 PM
TLWP: "After all, who says evolution has to have necessarily any thing 'macro' about it as though macro- actually implies some grand guide overseeing where evolution goes?"
Darwin said it. He claimed that it was necessary to find fossils that showed the transition between types of animanls (macroevolution), not just variation a species, to prove his theory.
The debate between evolutionists and creationists is over the concept of transitions from one type of animal to another. No one has ever denied that variation happens within animal types. We have to distinguish between micro and macro evolution because evolutionists are dishonest: they use microevolution proofs as proofs for macroevolution without telling people that's what they're doing. The only evidence for macroevolution is the fossil record, and it's very limited.
Published: October 31, 2007 8:11 AM
Yeah right, sure! ;)
Here are a couple of choice quotes from the book Telling Lies For God by Aussie Geology Professor Ian Plimer:
However, the creationist movement commonly accuse scientific organisations and scientists of fraud without providing evidence. In Telling Lies for God, the evidence of creationist fraud is provided. In contrast, in the [Aussie] creationist magazine Ex Nihilo (vol. 7, 3, 1985), the anonymous review of the U.S.A. National Academy of Science book Science and Creationism (1984) states:
"Its greatest weakness is that its argument concerning palaentology in which it is guilty of public fraud. It claims that hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms have been found as evolutionary transitions since Darwin's time. This is just so devoid of truth that it can't be called anything else, from men and women who should know better, except a lie."
This review is anonymous. No creationist had the courage to put their name to the review to provide the proof of fraud and to prove that the National Academy of Science has published lies. If the Academy was really guilty of fraud, this would have been major worldwide news, however we only learn of it in the creationist cult literature.
...
Modern molecular biology is the most potent and powerful proof of evolution and if evolution did not exist, then blood types could not be measured, diseases could not be detected and parentage could not be determined.
...
Creationists also ignore the fact that the fossil record responds to changing palaeoenvironments and that there is a worldwide ordered sequence of life in the fossil record. All of this was known before Darwin. Furthermore, the fossil record does not need to be used to prove evolution. It is all around us in the great diversity of living organisms.
...
In the creationist dogma, the ark carried all species which exist on Earth today. Hence, the whole impossible voyage of the ark and the mythical global great flood would have had to have a 100 per cent survival rate.
There is, however another possibility considered by creationists when they try to deflect argument. Some creationists talk about microevolution and how freshwater fish might have evolved from saltwater fish in the 4,000 years since the flood. Unfortunately, for such a scenario to exist, the evolution rates required are millions of times faster than those proposed by science. One can not talk about microevolution without accepting macroevolution and, as we see so often, creationists' own arguments disprove their own concocted dogma.
}>:P
Published: October 31, 2007 9:29 AM
Dang italics didn't work out the way I wanted to! The tags looked right! :(
Published: October 31, 2007 9:32 AM
TWLP: "One can not talk about microevolution without accepting macroevolution..."
Why? Evolution does not claim that new species are created by evolution, but that new animals are created. A bird is not a species of reptiles. It's a whole different animal.
Evolutionists claim that the process by which new species of the same animal appear also creates new kinds of animals. Creationists say that can't happen and point to the gaps in the fossil record as evidence. Paleontologists have found a few fossils that they claim are transitional creatures, for example, half-way between dog and horse. But very little of such evidence exists, and much of that evidence is controversial.
TLWP: "Modern molecular biology is the most potent and powerful proof of evolution and if evolution did not exist, then blood types could not be measured, diseases could not be detected and parentage could not be determined."
Modern molecular biology is also the most potent proof of creation. See Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." The stuff about blood types is nonsense. Creationists recognize that children have parents and are very much like their parents because of DNA. That's all that is required to match blood types.
Published: October 31, 2007 11:45 AM
Paleontologists have found a few fossils that they claim are transitional creatures, for example, half-way between dog and horse.
Who says dogs turned into horses, or vice versa? Who says men turned into monkeys, or vice versa? They are all modern (present day) creatures, so no one with a shred of sense would say it. You're simply disingenuous. Do cats eat bats? Do bats eat cats? It doesn't matter which way I put it -- they are simply words cast to the air and I am talking to a creationist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html http://caninehealthnutrition.com/DogBreeds/origin-and-evolution-of-the-dog.html
Published: October 31, 2007 3:30 PM
greg: "Who says dogs turned into horses, or vice versa?"
That's textbook evolution.
Published: October 31, 2007 3:57 PM
More precisely, it is the textbook creationist version of evolution.
Published: October 31, 2007 6:19 PM
As an Australian, who lives with evolved fauna and flora all around him, evolution makes sense. We have here a possum with skin between its' legs and arms, and it uses these to glide between trees, going from one to another. This is an animal whose decendents could become true flying possums, like bats. This would be classified as a possum, but it can glide. Is it a transitional form? If any bones survived scavengers, how would future taxonomers classify it?
To any young-Earthers out there, where do diseases come from? If only Noah and his family are the ancestors of all humans, did they have every type of disease with them? Including all those venereal diseases? How did they live so long with such illnesses? Or did these different illnesses evolve later?
Published: October 31, 2007 7:08 PM
Even more so as the Great Flood is a major literal historical event to creationists.
Published: October 31, 2007 7:38 PM
Something else to consider- Chapter 1 of Genesis ends with God thinking at the end of Day 6, 'Very good job!' Humans had been made at the end of the day, and told to eat fruit and be fruitful and replenish the earth.
Chapters two and three, Adam and Mrs. Adam, have God expelling them from the Garden, after inventing sin. How can this be the same (very good) day? I think that Adam was a new line of humans, created later. The Flood could then wipe out the sinful Adamites, leaving Noah as the only line of Adam, but not the only human beings! The flood could then have been local, covering the land near Eden. When the dove flew away, it would be because she had met other doves, and chose to stay with them- doves that had not drowned, because their lands and trees were not destroyed. When you apply logic to Genesis, you see a lot of things that you weren't told.
Adam was not, for example, created immortal. The tree of life was there to keep him undying. Being expelled from Eden, and the tree of Life, is what caused him to age. Therefore Death must have been latent in him.
Adam's line, through Noah, eventually produced the Semitic peoples, and that led to Jesus, whose teachings led to the modern world.
Published: October 31, 2007 8:41 PM
Fundamentalist, the point on symbiogenesis is that all higher forms of life directly depend on lower forms of bacteria that they included and then evolved with over millions of years.
If God simply made us - and all other animals (from protists on up) and plants (from algae on up) - as we are, then why would he create us with cells populated by essential little critters that have their own DNA (and are clearly related to each other across species as well)?
Published: October 31, 2007 9:05 PM
BTW it's interesting to read about how a Sumerian Kings List showed Noah's father ruling Shurrupak some 18,000 years before the Great Flood!
Published: November 1, 2007 1:13 AM
nick: "This would be classified as a possum, but it can glide. Is it a transitional form?"
No. It's a possum that can glide. We have squirrels that can, too. To be a transitional creature, it would have to be between two types of animals, such as a reptile with feathers, for example.
nick: "where do diseases come from?"
New diseases, such as HIV, happen because of microevolution among bacteria and viruses. That's consistent with creationism.
nick: "Chapters two and three, Adam and Mrs. Adam, have God expelling them from the Garden, after inventing sin. How can this be the same (very good) day?"
There is no reason to believe it was the same day.
TT: "why would he create us with cells populated by essential little critters that have their own DNA..."
I can't explain why God did everything he did. But let's consider the answer that evolutionists give for everything that seems odd about their theory. Evolutionists say that a change enhanced the survival of the organism or animal. And that answer explains everything, even opposites. But even evolutionists can see that a theory than explains everything explains nothing. You can't use it to predict anything because it could also predict the opposite.
Published: November 1, 2007 9:00 PM
Here's a couple more links:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/HalfaWing.HTM
Published: November 1, 2007 10:20 PM
Fundamentalist:
1. You sidestep my point.
It is easy to see that complex, eukaryotic cells - starting with amoebas and protists and including the first plants like basic algae - rely for essential functions on what were once symbiotic bacteria but then gradually became organelles, organelles that still contain their own DNA and replicate like bacteria. Because sperm are relatively tiny compared to eggs, virtually all animal mitochondria is inherited from mothers. http://www.cytochemistry.net/cell-biology/mitochondria_lifecycle_graduate.htm
It is easy to see from the nature of essential organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts that all higher life evolved from simpler life forms that first took up those organelles as bacteria.
2. a theory than explains everything explains nothing
This, of course, is a strawman. There is no single, simple expanation for evolution, but rather a complex understanding based on different mechanisms that continue to be refined - as there is always more to be understood.
Ongoing debates and growth in knowledge about evolution's various mechanisms don't challenge the main theory that, based on success in reproduction, animals evolve. Sybiogenesis is one recently discovered mode of evolution; making use of the huge library of our "junk" DNA is apparently another that can account for rather rapid evolution.
Is "intelligent design" science? Does it make any predictions or offer any explanation whatsoever, other than that an "intelligent designer" did it? Evolution offers many predictions that can be tested, such as whether or not the same patterns of junk DNA and retroviruses that have incorporated themselves into DNA (endogenous retroviruses) and their locations will be found in species that scientists believe had a common ancestor, but not others. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/dna_virus.html
More on junk DNA and endogenous retroviruses here:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2007/09/if_its_junk_can_we_get_rid_of.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA
Published: November 1, 2007 11:37 PM
Fundamentalist, some fundamentalists insist that when the Bible says 'Day', it must mean only a 24-hour day as we understand the term. Day 6 in Genesis, chapter 1, has humanity being told to subdue the whole earth. Therefore some fundamentalists say that this must be the same moment that Adam was expelled from Eden, because they believe that Adam is the first human. I agree that these are different days.
Also, the Bible never says anything against evolution. Things are produced after their own kind, but micro-changes obviously happen. Over long periods of time, these small changes would build up into big ones. If you allow lots of time, then you are allowing evolution. Evolution happens in societies, gradually producing new kinds. If the days are not literal, or if Day 6 is NOT when Adam gets his marching orders, then lots of time is plausible.
So what is your objection?
Published: November 1, 2007 11:54 PM
Fundamentalist,
About the moth. That was an example of species adaptation that occurred rather quickly. Most evolution occurs very slowly over a long expanse of time.
Admittedly, attempts at adaptation or spontaneous mutation frequently fail. If I remember correctly, it is not uncommon for mutations to be sterile. At any rate, that is why evolutionary paths are full of detours that go nowhere with only a relatively few paths that have made it to the present day.
I believe that evolution and creationism are compatible. It is my belief that God created the universe, set it in motion and is allowing it to play out. No interference. Sort of a universal free will.
Published: November 2, 2007 12:45 AM
TT: "It is easy to see from the nature of essential organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts that all higher life evolved from simpler life forms that first took up those organelles as bacteria."
As for the scientific value of symbiogenesis, it seems that creation science leaves that to mainstream scientists to figure out. It doesn't seem to have much credibility among the mainstream. From the creationist perspective, all you have offered is a mechanism whereby macroevolution might have occurred. You still have to show that macroevolution did in fact occur. But for that you have to rely on the fossil record, which doesn't exist for macro.
Your attitude strikes me as being typical of evolutionists. Most don't care whether evidence exists for macroevolution or not. Evidence is not important to them. All they care about is having a logical mechanism whereby it could have happened. It reminds me of the old guy who lived upstairs in "Friends." When he complained about something disturbing his cat, and was challenged that he didn't have a cat, he would reply "I could have a cat."
nick: "Also, the Bible never says anything against evolution."
Not directly, but it does say that death didn't occur until the fall of Adam and Eve. Evolution requires millions of years of death and destruction before man appeared.
Nick: "Over long periods of time, these small changes would build up into big ones. If you allow lots of time, then you are allowing evolution."
That's true, but you have enormous amounts of evidence for microevolution, almost none for macro. All the theory of evolution provides is a possible mechanism for it to work. But you still have to prove that it did work, which requires the fossil record. It also requires the denial of the most fundamental truth of biology: life can come only from living things; never from nonliving matter.
IMHO: "About the moth. That was an example of species adaptation that occurred rather quickly."
That's true, but it's still just an example of microevolution. Most of the evidence cited for evolution is micro, but creationists have no problem with microevolution. Farmers and ranchers have practiced it for centuries. It's the macro part that lacks evidence.
IMHO: "I believe that evolution and creationism are compatible. It is my belief that God created the universe, set it in motion and is allowing it to play out. No interference. Sort of a universal free will."
Most Christians that I know believe in theistic evolution in which God guided the process. Some people call this the "god of the gaps" theory. I don't happen to agree with theistic evolution, mainly because of the requirement of massive amounts of death before the fall of Adama and Eve.
But strictly on a scientific basis, I can't see the evidence for evolution. I think the willingness of people to accept a theory that violates the fundamental principles of physics and biology and has very little evidence for it is a sign that they are willing to believe anything as long as it does away with God.
Published: November 2, 2007 8:09 AM
Not directly, but it does say that death didn't occur until the fall of Adam and Eve. Evolution requires millions of years of death and destruction before man appeared.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Adam and Eve ate things other than the Forbidden Fruit. They didn't eat rocks, they ate carbon-based lifeforms. Those things died. Imagine that Adam and Eve lived billions of years before they ate the apple and you would see evolution in the other living things of Eden. Also, there is no real difference between macroevolution and microevolution. Scientists don't use terms because it's a distinction without distinction.
There's a cool video of clocks evolving randomly in a simulation here.
Published: November 3, 2007 8:00 PM
nick: "This would be classified as a possum, but it can glide. Is it a transitional form?"
No. It's a possum that can glide. We have squirrels that can, too. To be a transitional creature, it would have to be between two types of animals, such as a reptile with feathers, for example.
As I pointed out above, nothing that exists will ever be recognized as "transitional" by creationists: the very fact of its existence makes it "just another animal". Only fantasy-creatures can be "transitional". If you found a reptile with feathers, that wouldn't be transitional, it be "a reptile with feathers".
In fact, every creature is transitional.
Published: November 3, 2007 10:32 PM
Peter: "As I pointed out above, nothing that exists will ever be recognized as "transitional" by creationists: the very fact of its existence makes it "just another animal".
Creationists did not define what a transitional animal would be; evolutionists defined it, and they have been searching for them from the day Darwin published his book because Darwin predicted them and based the validity of his theory on them. Your ignorance of the theory you defend you stubbornly is quite amazing!
Published: November 4, 2007 8:21 AM