Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On page 6, paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, Morris says,
No Recapitulation or Vestigial Organs. The old arguments for evolution based upon the recapitulation theory (the idea that embryonic development in the womb recapitulates the evolution of the species) and vestigial organs ("useless" organs believed to have been useful in an earlier stage of evolution) have long been discredited.
One wonders why Morris feels compelled to make this statement here. It certainly was not SciCre-ists who did the work to show that neither Haeckel's dictum nor vestigial organs were quite as wonderful as they first appeared as arguments. These arguments are not current in evolutionary biology. It seems somewhat deceptive to me to critique long disused arguments and ignore other arguments that have scientific currency.
Stephen Jay Gould argues that the fall of Haeckel's biogenetic law occurred with the rise of Mendelian genetics. The newly rediscovered principles of genetics (in 1900) were fundamentally at variance with the essential notion of Haeckel's dictum that all organisms in their embryological development pass through the *adult* forms of their ancestral lineage.
Gould also indicates that data *can* be had from comparative embryology:
[...] The gill slits of a human fetus are not those of an adult fish; they represent the common embryonic state of all vertebrates. The specify common descent, but they do not constitute a parallel between the stages of ontogeny and phylogeny. [...]
-- SJ Gould, Ontogeny And Phylogeny, 1977, p. 204.
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On page 6, paragraph 7, Morris says,
The Residual Case for EvolutionIn spite of these admissions, all the scientists quoted above continue to believe in evolution. Although I have not tried to give the full context of each quotation, each point noted is fully warranted in context, and will be more extensively documented later.
As I demonstrated earlier, Morris' quote of Gould discussing a "vector of progress" was, in fact, quite misleading. Morris collapsed into ellipses precisely those statements where Gould put forward an evolutionary explanation, and attempted to make it look like Gould was simply bewildered.
Morris' heading also demands attention. "Residual case" would indicate that consideration will be given to *all* the evidence not so far discussed. Will this really happen?
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On page 6, paragraphs 7 & 8, Morris says,
The Residual Case for EvolutionWhy does Morris quote Cherfas and not Gould? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Gould does not "fall back" on evidence of jury-rigged design. Gould's argument is intended to distinguish between common descent and special creation, not as a last ditch defense of evolutionary mechanism theories. Why would I say this? Perhaps citing Gould discussing evolution as a fact would be appropriate. The argument from imperfection is the second of three arguments that Gould offers for establishment of the fact of evolution. The first argument deals with direct evidence.In spite of these admissions, all the scientists quoted above continue to believe in evolution. Although I have not tried to give the full context of each quotation, each point noted is fully warranted in context, and will be more extensively documented later.
What, then, remains of the case for evolution? Stephen Gould falls back on what he believes are "imperfections" in nature.
"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation" (Jeremy Cherfas, 1984).
The Fact of EvolutionOur confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, both from the field and laboratory. It ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous British moths that turned black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which they rest. (The moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) I will not dwell on these data here, because creationists do not deny them; how could they? [...]
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On pages 6 & 7, paragraphs 7, 8, 1, & 2, Morris says,
The Residual Case for EvolutionIn spite of these admissions, all the scientists quoted above continue to believe in evolution. Although I have not tried to give the full context of each quotation, each point noted is fully warranted in context, and will be more extensively documented later.
What, then, remains of the case for evolution? Stephen Gould falls back on what he believes are "imperfections" in nature.
"If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation" (Jeremy Cherfas, 1984).
But this is essentially the same as the old discredited argument from vestigial organs, and merely assumes that our present ignorance is real knowledge. [...]
This last sentence is a baldfaced untruth. The argument from vestigial organs relies upon organs having no present function in organisms, which requires omniscience concerning all modes of function. The argument from imperfections does not have this dependency. Gould's original example, the panda's thumb, demonstrates the difference. The panda's thumb has a function, all right. It is used for grasping bamboo stalks. The crux of the argument is that the anatomy of the panda's thumb demonstrates its descent: it is derived from the sesamoid bones of a bear, and not the innermost digit as seen in some other lineages.
The panda's thumb provides an elegant zoological counterpart to Darwin's orchids. An engineer's best solution is debarred by history. The panda's true thumb is committed to another role, too specialized for a different function to become an opposable, manipulating digit. So the panda must use parts on hand and settle for an enlarged wrist bone and a somewhat clumsy, but workable, solution. The sesamoid thumb wins no prize in an engineer's derby. It is, to use Michael Ghiselin's phrase, a contraption, not a lovely contrivance. But it does its job and excites our imagination all the more because it builds on such improbable foundations.
-- SJ Gould, "The panda's thumb", in "The Panda's Thumb", p. 24.
There is no dependency on current ignorance involved in the argument from imperfections, contrary to Morris' assertion. Why would Morris want to be misleading on this point?
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On pages 6 & 7, paragraphs 7, & 2, Morris says,
The Residual Case for Evolution[...]
But this is essentially the same as the old discredited argument from vestigial organs, and merely assumes that our present ignorance is real knowledge. Even if there are imperfections in nature (as well as harmful mutations, vestigial organs, extinctions, etc.), such trends are opposite to any imaginary evolutionary progress, so can hardly prove evolution.
As demonstrated before, the argument from imperfections does not rely on current ignorance. Now, Morris says that existing imperfections cannot be used to demonstrate evolutionary progress. That is very, very slick. However, it is an example of an irrelevancy.
Did Gould use the argument from imperfections to make an assertion of evolutionary progress? No, he did not. The argument from imperfections is supposed to establish the historicity of descent, not demonstrate some form of teleology.
But, Darwin reasoned, if organisms have a history, then ancestral stages should leave remnants behind. Remnants of the past that don't make sense in present terms -- the useless, the odd, the peculiar, the incongruous -- are the signs of history. They supply proof that the world was not made in its present form. When history perfects, it covers its own tracks.
-- SJ Gould, "Senseless signs of history", in "The Panda's Thumb", pp. 28-29.
Morris seems to want his readers to believe that the argument from imperfections is an exclusive argument. That is, because someone employs the argument from imperfections, they necessarily disavow any evidence of adaptive change which does make sense from an engineering perspective. That's just plain false. One can point out the imperfections to demonstrate the point of historicity of descent, and also point out examples of adaptive change with engineering sensibility for other purposes.
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On pages 6 & 7, paragraphs 7 & 6, Morris says,
The Residual Case for Evolution[...]
But apart from its necessity as a support for atheism or pantheism, there is clearly no scientific evidence for evolution.
And here we come to the crux of the section. Morris now claims to have reviewed and successfully dismissed all evidence that might be used to support evolutionary mechanism theories.
However, Morris' analysis of evidence from similarities failed to address homeobox genes. His citation of Denton indicates that Morris did not understand the implications of common descent for molecular data. Where Morris does mention fossils, his quotes tend to the misleading. Morris would have to deal with the instances of identified transitionals to dispose of the fossil evidence, not rely upon quote-picking. Where Morris discusses current evolution, speciation, and mechanisms, he is quite simply mistaken.
Morris fails entirely to comment upon:
For the section, The Residual Case for Evolution, I can only conclude that Morris has not done his homework. In order to reduce a case to a residual, all other evidence must have been considered. Morris has quite obviously failed in this task. Even for those portions where Morris claims to have demonstrated a lack of evidence, I have demonstrated that Morris' analysis is often faulty or woefully incomplete. Additionally, any remaining lines of evidence that were not covered by Morris makes his claim of a "residual case" a baldfaced lie, and I have identified several such lines of evidence.
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On pages 6 & 7, paragraphs 7 & 6, Morris says,
The Residual Case for Evolution[...]
But apart from its necessity as a support for atheism or pantheism, there is clearly no scientific evidence for evolution.
Clearly, there is quite a lot of scientific evidence of evolution that Morris knows little or nothing about. I've previously listed several classes of evidence that Morris did not even mention, much less disestablish.
Repetition of untruth does not make the untruth reflect reality. Why does Morris seem to want to repeat this particular untruth?
(For 960524:)
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On pages 6 & 7, paragraphs 7, 7, & 8, Morris says,
The Residual Case for Evolution[...]
The absence of evidence for evolution does not, by itself, prove creation, of course; nevertheless, special creation is clearly the only alternative to evolution.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence" (D.J. Futuyma, 1983).
Of course, there is no absence of evidence for evolution (the phenomena) or for evolutionary mechanism theories (the proposed mechanisms of how the phenomena happen). Nor is special creation in the sense that Morris uses it the only alternative to evolution.
In computer science, there is the "pigeonhole principle". If you only have X number of pigeonholes and X+1 data items, by necessity more than one data item will have to be placed into at least one of the X pigeonholes. In the quoted text above, Morris hopes that no one will examine the pigeonholes.
You see, Futuyma has restricted his pigeonholes to two. The pigeonhole labeled by Futuyma as "evolution" will happily contain any process of development or descent with modification. The pigeonhole labeled by Futyma as "creation" will happily contain any account that puts fully developed organisms on the earth.
OK, so why is this not a legitimate quote on Morris' part? Because Morris' use of "special creation" is a far more restrictive pigeonhole, and Morris' use of "evolution" is also a far more restrictive pigeonhole. While Morris-evolution happily fits in the Futuyma-evolution pigeonhole and Morris-"special creation" fits in the Futuyma-creation pigeonhole, there are a number of concepts which Morris does not accept as special creation which would also fit the Futuyma-creation pigeonhole. Morris wants to use Futuyma's quote as support for Morris' position, but as usual, the quote does not actually support that specific position.
Morris, for example, lists "religions that are structured around an evolutionary philosophy" on page 17. Included in Morris' list are Satanism, Taoism, and Hinduism. Morris claims that every one of the religions included in his list is anti-creationist. And yet each of the examples I mention above obviously go into the Futuyma-creation pigeonhole, since they postulate the appearance of fully-developed life. Hindus are not anti-creation. The Hindu creation account is not consistent with Morris' "special creation", but that certainly does not then mean that they embrace descent with modification.
Morris also later clarifies his meaning of "evolution" to be "by accident". Most biological theories of evolution do not fit that pigeonhole. Morris' set of pigeonholes must either be larger than two, or Morris simply must refuse to properly classify existing concepts.
This whole false dichotomy has far more reliance upon ignorance in common with the argument from vestigial organs than what Morris claimed had identity with that argument. Before Lamarck and Darwin, there was no apparent dichotomy. Afterwards, Morris claims that a dichotomy exists. This relies upon our ignorance of further possibilities and nothing more.
Scientific positions must be founded upon data and inference. Inference that works from the data is to be preferred over inference that works from both ignorance of the data and ignorance of the range of concepts that may be encountered. Morris has here attempted to pull several fast ones. First, he wants his readers to ignore the data that exists. Second, Morris wants his readers to use inference that relies upon ignorance. Third, Morris quotes Futuyma, even though Futuyma's discussion is fundamentally at variance with Morris' outlook concerning classification of concepts.
Morris and Parker, "What is creation science?"
On pages 6 & 7, paragraphs 7, 7, & 8, Morris says,
The Residual Case for Evolution[...]
The absence of evidence for evolution does not, by itself, prove creation, of course; nevertheless, special creation is clearly the only alternative to evolution.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence" (D.J. Futuyma, 1983).
Of course, there is no absence of evidence for evolution (the phenomena) or for evolutionary mechanism theories (the proposed mechanisms of how the phenomena happen). Nor is special creation in the sense that Morris uses it the only alternative to evolution.
In computer science, there is the "pigeonhole principle". If you only have X number of pigeonholes and X+1 data items, by necessity more than one data item will have to be placed into at least one of the X pigeonholes. In the quoted text above, Morris hopes that no one will examine the pigeonholes.
You see, Futuyma has restricted his pigeonholes to two. The pigeonhole labeled by Futuyma as "evolution" will happily contain any process of development or descent with modification. The pigeonhole labeled by Futyma as "creation" will happily contain any account that puts fully developed organisms on the earth.
OK, so why is this not a legitimate quote on Morris' part? Because Morris' use of "special creation" is a far more restrictive pigeonhole, and Morris' use of "evolution" is also a far more restrictive pigeonhole. While Morris-evolution happily fits in the Futuyma-evolution pigeonhole and Morris-"special creation" fits in the Futuyma-creation pigeonhole, there are a number of concepts which Morris does not accept as special creation which would also fit the Futuyma-creation pigeonhole. Morris wants to use Futuyma's quote as support for Morris' position, but as usual, the quote does not actually support that specific position.
Morris, for example, lists "religions that are structured around an evolutionary philosophy" on page 17. Included in Morris' list are Satanism, Taoism, and Hinduism. Morris claims that every one of the religions included in his list is anti-creationist. And yet each of the examples I mention above obviously go into the Futuyma-creation pigeonhole, since they postulate the appearance of fully-developed life. Hindus are not anti-creation. The Hindu creation account is not consistent with Morris' "special creation", but that certainly does not then mean that they embrace descent with modification.
Morris also later clarifies his meaning of "evolution" to be "by accident". Most biological theories of evolution do not fit that pigeonhole. Morris' set of pigeonholes must either be larger than two, or Morris simply must refuse to properly classify existing concepts.
This whole false dichotomy has far more reliance upon ignorance in common with the argument from vestigial organs than what Morris claimed had identity with that argument. Before Lamarck and Darwin, there was no apparent dichotomy. Afterwards, Morris claims that a dichotomy exists. This relies upon our ignorance of further possibilities and nothing more.
Scientific positions must be founded upon data and inference. Inference that works from the data is to be preferred over inference that works from both ignorance of the data and ignorance of the range of concepts that may be encountered. Morris has here attempted to pull several fast ones. First, he wants his readers to ignore the data that exists. Second, Morris wants his readers to use inference that relies upon ignorance. Third, Morris quotes Futuyma, even though Futuyma's discussion is fundamentally at variance with Morris' outlook concerning classification of concepts.
RealCom. Web page providers extraodinaire... check 'em out.
Search pages: WebCrawler | Excite! | Infoseek | Lycos | Yahoo!