O'Reilly Shamefully Ignorant of the Bible
It should come as no surprise that Islamophobe and Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly recently made it obvious that he is painfully ignorant of the Bible. Not only is this brand of scriptural ignorance par for the course for many Catholics, but it also is a warning sign for those who think it's worthwhile to listen to the patently ignorant opinions of bigoted "talking heads" in the mainstream media. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers"—thus watching television news must be even worse.
The details of O'Reilly's recent case of foot-in-mouth disease are discussed in "Culture Warrior" O'Reilly, who chided Dean over Book of Job misidentification, says Revelation "was written—what? Five thousand years ago?"—which is just another very worthwhile contribution by the Media Matters for America website. Keep in mind that Bill O'Reilly really looks like a hypocrite on this one since, as the previous title mentions, he once belittled Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean for being ignorant of the Bible!
Yes, it seems that O'Reilly did not have any idea that the Book of Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse of John), which is the last canonical book in the Christian New Testament, was written only in the first century of the Common Era. One would think that someone with a degree in history, as O'Reilly does, as well as a mere schoolboy's knowledge of the Bible, would be able to do some quick math and determine that Revelation was written about 1,900 years ago, not 5,000 (i.e. it's now the year 2007 and the book was written 60 to 100 years after Jesus). However, the fact that O'Reilly said, "Five thousand years ago" just shows how painfully ignorant he is. After reading this, I think I need to start a new blog category called Biblical Ignorance, which will include this posting as well as English in Jesus' Time?—A Glaring Anachronism.
The other aspect of O'Reilly's statement on this matter that I found disturbing, although unsurprising, was his simplistic and uncritical acceptance of the claim that the Book of Revelation discusses, if not predicts, the current events in the Middle East...which O'Reilly calls "interesting" (and if you want to read a scathing and critical rebuttal to the claims of Biblical prophecy, read this). Personally, what I find both "interesting" and disturbing is that books and authors who are critical of this Bible-based apocalyptic outlook do not get more air time. As I mentioned in Forcing God's Hand With Three Sixes, which also discusses some textual problems related to the Book of Revelation, I continue to be fascinated by the fact "that otherwise intelligent people are still being duped by the shallow and simple-minded proofs of Biblical prophecy." Yes, the uncritical acceptance of half-baked theology fascinates me, but the fact that for a long time now these views, held my millions of uncritical pew-warmers in the United States, are having a profound impact on not only U.S. foreign policy, but on domestic policies (including freedom of religion) within this country, really disturbs me. On that note, those who are interested should take a look at Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, by Michelle Goldberg (a long review can be found here), On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israels Best Friend, by Timothy P. Weber, Christian Zionism: Road-Map to Armageddon?, by Stephen R. Sizer, and the already mentioned Forcing God's Hand: Why Millions Pray for a Quick Rapture—and Destruction of Planet Earth, by Grace Halsell (with an off-site review here).
Remember, as Norman O. Brown wrote when discussing the power apocalyptic and eschatological imagery of the Qur'an, "eschatology can break out at any moment"...
Labels: Biblical Studies, Islamophobia
posted by @ 1:17 PM
Comment Guidelines
77 comments
77 Comments:
On a sidenote, David Flusser in his book "Jewish Sources in Early Christianity" finds that Revelations took material from earlier Jewish writings.
O'Reilly is a moron. He is not only appallingly ignorant of history, he is also appallingly ignorant of modern science. The man has the audacity to reject Darwin on the basis of his spurious religious beliefs. Truly, he is a fool for the ages.
Thanks for the comment. Although I think there might be some flaws in the Theory of Evolution, there's no doubt that most of the religiously motivated attacks on it are embarrassing, dishonest and intellectually shameful (especially from the fundamentalist Christian side). I'm actually reading an excellent book which covers the scientific, academic and legal history of the battles between Creationists and Evolutionists in American schools. It's called Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul, by Edward Humes, and it's a very worthwhile and even-handed overview for those who want to learn more about this subject. Unfortunately, this is a subject that remains rather problematic for believers, although I think less problematic for Muslims than for Christians. That's because creation in the Qur'an is covered in a much more general way than in the Bible...and as they say, the Devil is in the details (especially when the details are scientifically inaccurate). Needless to say, simply assuming that the Bible (or the Qur'an) is literally true in regards to science, and then setting out of find scientific evidence that seems to agree with it, while ignoring any evidence that doesn't, cannot be called "science". Too bad there are a lot of people who just don't get this.
Needless to say, when it comes to the realm of empirical science, most of the experts endorse the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on our planet. I don't believe this discounts the possibility of an Intelligent Designer (i.e. God), but this belongs in the realm of theology or metaphysics, not empirical science. It's ignoring this glaring fact that has caused so much dishonesty to come out of the religious side. Scientists might be faulted for taking the theory too far on the macro level, and even for not being able to really explain the "How?" of it all. Personally, when I read Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, I felt as if he never really got to the point of explaining the nitty-gritty of how it worked, or even might have worked. Although I'm not a scientist, I find the Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" at the biochemical level, as arguned in Darwin's Black Box, to be rather convincing. Although Richard Dawkins argues that Charles Darwin already addressed this back in the 19th century, but it doesn't seem that way to me. Rather, it seems that Dawkins is throwing up a smoke screen. Unfortunately, the saddest thing about this entire issue is the dishonest and bull-headed way that many religious people have tried to deal with it. After reading about some of the real-life characters in Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul, readers will known what I mean. They almost make Bill O'Reilly look informed and intellectually honest...but not quite!
As I see it, both sides (not counting Christian "Young Earth" creationists) have a position that cannot be objectively proven to be untrue by the other side (i.e. scientists cannot PROVE that there's not an Unseen, All-Knowing and All-Powerful God behind all of creation, nor can theists objectively PROVE that there is). However, it would be nice if a bit more...actually a lot more...intellectual honesty was brought to the debating table, especially on the religious side. From what I've seen, they're much more guilty of misrepresenting the views of scientists. Sound and thoughtful refutation is one thing, but misrepresentation and deception is quite another.
A few things:
1. There are no “flaws” in the theory of evolution. There might be limitations, but all scientific theories have limitations. All theories are works-in-progress, forever open to the possibility of revision and development. That’s the beauty of science. It’s still unclear, for example, whether the human capacity for speech arose directly through natural selection or as a byproduct of natural selection. Stephen Jay Gould takes the former view, whereas Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett take the latter view. It’s also unclear whether evolution occurred gradually or through rapid bursts. The former was for a long time the authoritative view, whereas the latter view, Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium, has been gaining wider acceptance. These are legitimate areas of debate amongst evolutionary scientists. That, however, is no indication of a “flaw”. All science thrives on legitimate debate between competing explanations. The outcome of more than a century of scientific debate over different aspects of evolution has only fortified one and only one conclusion: evolution offers the correct account of human origins. Humans did indeed evolve from earlier species of primates, whether people of faith like it or not.
2. Fundamentalist Christians are not the only ones who level “religiously motivated attacks” on evolution. There are plenty of “embarrassing, dishonest and intellectually shameful” examples from amongst your fellow believers as well. The work of the Muslim propagandist Harun Yahya is perhaps the most deplorable example.
Another example is the Islamic writer Sheik Nuh Min Ha Keller (an American convert to Islam now living somewhere in the Middle East), has written the following:
"As for claim that man has evolved from a non-human species, this is unbelief (kufr) no matter if we ascribe the process to Allah or to "nature," because it negates the truth of Adam's special creation that Allah has revealed in the Qur'an. Man is of special origin, attested to not only by revelation, but also by the divine secret within him, the capacity for ma'rifa or knowledge of the Divine that he alone of all things possesses."
A statement like this clearly pits faith against logic, reason, and evidence. It pits belief against truth. On this point, I don’t see how Islam fares any better than Christianity in its encounter with modern science. The original pamphlet in which the above quote appears is a truly “embarrassing, dishonest and intellectually shameful” attempt to deny what mainstream science has accepted as basic fact for the last century.
3. Scientists have indeed explained the “how” of evolution. There’s an entire scientific field devoted to it. It’s called genetics, and was originally developed independently of Darwin by a brilliant Catholic priest, namely, Gregor Mendel. Genetics demonstrates exactly what Darwin argued: that evolution occurs by mutation, variation, selection. And, yes, this process is random. How you could have failed to even notice this--and after reading Dawkins, no less--is just baffling.
4. Regarding Michael Behe, a few comments:
First, Behe does not challenge evolution. He does not dispute the fact that humans evolved from earlier species of primates. It’s just remarkable that people who read his books don't comprehend this. Behe has stated this before publicly. Rather, he challenges the Darwinian explanation of the mechanism by which evolution takes place, namely, natural selection.
Second, his so-called biochemical challenge has convinced no one -- at least, no one whose opinion actually matters. The scientifically illiterate simply do not matter. Even his own department rejects his anti-Darwinian claims as having no basis in science. Behe’s entire challenge rests on the example of the bacterial flagellum. That argument cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny and has been refuted on more than one occasion, most recently at the Dover trial by more competent scientists.
Third, Behe has never published a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal challenging evolution or natural selection. In fact, no one has ever published a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal challenging evolution.
Fourth, Behe was given a beating at the Dover trial for his absurd definition of “science”. He tried to redefine science to include supernatural explanations; explanation which, by definition, are not testable. When pressed into a corner, he admitted that his concept of “science” was so broad as to include astrology.
Fifth, Behe was one of the three members of the Discovery Institute sent to tutor Ann Coulter, of all people, on the apparent “flaws” of evolution. Coulter explicitly thanks Behe in her book, Godless. This last fact alone is enough to speak for that poor man's credibility.
Behe's work is the best that the anti-Darwin camp has ever offered. If that's as good as it gets, I think it's safe to say evolution is in no particular crisis.
5. Science is not in the business of explaining whether there's “an Unseen, All-Knowing and All-Powerful God behind all of creation.” From the standpoint of science, the idea of an “Unseen, All-Knowing and All-Powerful God behind all of creation” is not testable and therefore not even worth considering. It’s neither true nor false, but rather meaningless.
True, scientists can’t disprove the existence of something which, by definition, can’t be disproved. However, people of faith can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or invisible pink unicorns, either. Between competing scientific claims, we at least have rational reasons for endorsing one claim over another. Between competing unprovable claims about unseen gods, however, there is no rational reason to choose one over the other. So, I'm not sure that type of argument works in your favour.
None of this changes the earlier point: evolution is a fact of modern science and anyone who denies it, whether O'Reilly or a Muslim fundamentalist, is a manifest idiot.
A few responses to "Belgium Beer":
>There are no “flaws” in the theory of evolution.
Even if that were true, expecting me to believe this just because you say so doesn't seem like a very sound approach. It carries about as much weight as if I told you that Muslim theologians are unanimous that there is, indeed, a God...and they feel that their proofs are flawless.
Yes, I'm aware that a scientific "theory" is much more than a guess or a hypothesis, as many on the anti-Evolution side often try to portray it. That's just one of many dishonest aspects of their campaign...
>Humans did indeed evolve from earlier species of primates, whether people of faith like it or not.
Well, I have to admit, that the evidence does seem to indicate that—at least from the standpoint of biology (and that's what we're talking about here)—this is the case...whether the faithful like it or not.
>Fundamentalist Christians are not the only ones who level “religiously motivated attacks” on evolution.
I don't think I ever said, or even implied, that. Rather I only said, or meant to say, that they seem to be the worst of the lot...but maybe I'm a bit biased here.
>There are plenty of “embarrassing, dishonest and intellectually shameful” examples from amongst your fellow believers as well.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you here.
>The work of the Muslim propagandist Harun Yahya is perhaps the most deplorable example.
Well he tries to appeal to the common man, which is usually not a good thing when it comes to science. In spite of his widespread appeal, he is neither a scientist nor a Muslim scholar. This explains why he has problems in both arenas. His book on Evolution has been portrayed as pseudo-science by his detractors. On the Muslim side, the fact that he denies some hadith, seemingly because he finds them scientifically unacceptable, has brought strong criticism from conservative Muslims .
>Another example is the Islamic writer Sheik Nuh Min Ha Keller...
>A statement like this clearly pits faith against logic, reason, and evidence. It pits belief against truth.
Well I think you should leave "logic" and "reason" out of it, since there's probably a lot more behind what he's saying than you may realize—and Shaykh Nuh may have a definition of "reason" that's more expansive than your own. However, those reservations not withstanding, it certainly seems to pit what is essentially the consensus of the scientific community (a de facto consensus that no doubt exists, in spite of what detractors may claim) against the claims of Divine revelation. However, I'm not sure that there's still not an "out" here as far as religion goes. That's because one could argue that the creation process took place in stages...and the Qur'an actually hints at this (with the exception of the first man). However, the various forms of homo erectus (or is it homo erecti?) that were evolving were not, from the religous point of view, actually human beings since they did not have a soul. However, once this God-guided evolutionary creation process took place, God created "with His own Hands" (i.e. not by an evolutionary process) a creature that was just like the other homo erecti that had evolved...and He breathed into him His spirit. Thus, from the religious point-of-view, this was the first human being (i.e. homo sapien body with a soul). This is just a thumb-nail sketch of the type of response that I think is still very much feasible from the theistic point of view.
Sure, this is all based on faith and not science...but Muslims have their proofs as to why their final Divine revelation is believable in this regard (e.g. a viable answer to the riddle of how an unlettered man in Arabia could have produced, consciously or unconsciously, a book that had the impact of the Qur'an). The problem is, it seems, that both sides are mixing up their realms of expertise. Divine revelation tells us about matters of the Unseen (i.e. outside the realm of empirical investigation) which science, by definition, cannot disprove. On the other hand, religious people are busy trying to deny the facts that the created world is presenting to us...even though the Qur'an considers all of it to be "signs". Sure, they can claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are misinterpreting these "signs", but in order to make their case, the anti-Darwinists are going to have to do better than present the poorly argued and dishonest pseudo-science that they've presented so far. In the end, I'm not sure why they're so afraid, since in the end science cannot prove nor disprove something that its outside its realm—the existence of God.
>On this point, I don’t see how Islam fares any better than Christianity in its encounter with modern science.
Well Muslims don't have to defend the two creation stories in Genesis for one thing. While I think the supposedly dazzling proofs of all the "science" in the Qur'an are overused and overstated by Muslims, I'm also of the opinion that there are not any unambiguous scientific problems in the text of the Qur'an either...but the same cannot be said of the Bible.
>The original pamphlet in which the above quote appears is a truly “embarrassing, dishonest and intellectually shameful” attempt to deny what mainstream science has accepted as basic fact for the last century.
I think you've overstated things here in your haste to repeatedly re-employ my quotation. Since you believe in the Theory of Evolution and not the Qur'an, you might consider the pamphlet "embarrassing" and "intellectually shameful", but I don't see how you could consider it "dishonest". I've read Shaykh Nuh's booklet and in contrast to most religiously-based anti-Evolution tracts, I certainly don't think that he misrepresented the views of scientists. If you don't believe in God, you're certainly free to label the rejection of Evolution due to a belief in God as "embarrassing" and "intellectually shameful", but in order to call it "dishonest" I think you need to demonstrate that something has been willfully misrepresented.
>Scientists have indeed explained the “how” of evolution. There’s an entire scientific field devoted to it. It’s called genetics, and was originally developed independently of Darwin by a brilliant Catholic priest, namely, Gregor Mendel. Genetics demonstrates exactly what Darwin argued: that evolution occurs by mutation, variation, selection. And, yes, this process is random. How you could have failed to even notice this--and after reading Dawkins, no less--is just baffling.
It's not baffling if you actually look at the lack of detail in the Dawkins book. It almost came across as if he wants the reader to take it on faith or because the experts say so. Personally, I think Dawkins usually makes his case rather well, but I found him rather lacking on this one. However, Dawkins himself, in response to Behe, claimed that Darwin himself had answered this...but you're claiming genetics did it. Which is it, since the information that Gregor Mendel had about genetics wasn't available to Charles Darwin?
>First, Behe does not challenge evolution. He does not dispute the fact that humans evolved from earlier species of primates. It’s just remarkable that people who read his books don't comprehend this. Behe has stated this before publicly. Rather, he challenges the Darwinian explanation of the mechanism by which evolution takes place, namely, natural selection.
Well I am aware of Behe's view and it is indeed shameful how the creationists, especially the "Young Earthers", use him as an ally. To be honest, I don't think most of these people have read his book or any book at all except for the Bible. The book Monkey Girl, which I mentioned above, explains the reasons behind Behe's acceptance by religious anti-Evolutionists...and it's well worth a read.
>Second, his so-called biochemical challenge has convinced no one -- at least, no one whose opinion actually matters. The scientifically illiterate simply do not matter. Even his own department rejects his anti-Darwinian claims as having no basis in science.
Sad, but true. It's about time that those on the religious side of this argument realize that they aren't going to be able to win this argument...or save religious belief...by using science (actually pseudo-science) against science. What they need to do is fall back on their realm of expertise, which is outside the realm of science, and come up with explanation as to why the concensus of scientific understanding does not necessarily contradict Divine revelation.
>Third, Behe has never published a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal challenging evolution or natural selection. In fact, no one has ever published a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal challenging evolution.
Ditto.
>Fourth, Behe was given a beating at the Dover trial for his absurd definition of “science”. He tried to redefine science to include supernatural explanations; explanation which, by definition, are not testable. When pressed into a corner, he admitted that his concept of “science” was so broad as to include astrology.
Ditto.
>Fifth, Behe was one of the three members of the Discovery Institute sent to tutor Ann Coulter, of all people, on the apparent “flaws” of evolution. Coulter explicitly thanks Behe in her book, Godless. This last fact alone is enough to speak for that poor man's credibility.
That's funny...and very much unsurprising. I was unaware of this fact, so thanks for letting me know. I don't read Coulter's books, so you'll have to forgive me that (grin). I'm no fan of Ann Coulter as this makes clear.
>Behe's work is the best that the anti-Darwin camp has ever offered. If that's as good as it gets, I think it's safe to say evolution is in no particular crisis.
I think that's a pretty fair estimation of the state of things from the point of view of scientists. Unfortunately, all of the misinformation games continue at the popular level.
>Science is not in the business of explaining whether there's “an Unseen, All-Knowing and All-Powerful God behind all of creation.” From the standpoint of science, the idea of an “Unseen, All-Knowing and All-Powerful God behind all of creation” is not testable and therefore not even worth considering. It’s neither true nor false, but rather meaningless.
This was exactly my point. However, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's "rather meaningless", since that's clear question begging.
>True, scientists can’t disprove the existence of something which, by definition, can’t be disproved.
Unfortunately, however, some scientists and atheists have claimed that the existence of God has been disproven. At least you're honest enough to see that they've overstated their case here. Their opinions about the realm of the "Unseen" are just as worthless as the opinions of non-experts about science.
>However, people of faith can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or invisible pink unicorns, either.
From the standpoint of pure logic, that's true.
>Between competing scientific claims, we at least have rational reasons for endorsing one claim over another. Between competing unprovable claims about unseen gods, however, there is no rational reason to choose one over the other. So, I'm not sure that type of argument works in your favour.
Which is why I think the best theologians—Jewish, Christian or Muslim—state that the existence of God is unprovable in the scientific sense of the word. Rather the proofs...subjective as they may seem to the one who hasn't experienced them...lie in the depths of the human soul.
>None of this changes the earlier point: evolution is a fact of modern science and anyone who denies it, whether O'Reilly or a Muslim fundamentalist, is a manifest idiot.
Well I think "manifest idiot" is a bit tough, since they exhibit very high intelligence in other areas. However, on this point they can't overcome the cognitive dissonance that kicks in when they cannot find a suitable and feasible explantion for something that seems to counter, or at least undermine, their religious beliefs...but God knows best.
Thanks for your engaging response!
Abdurrahman R. Squires
For those who are interested, and as an alternative to burying one's head in the sand, here are links to the books that were mentioned above:
Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul
by Edward Humes
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0060885483/mereislam-20A/
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0743290313/mereislam-20A/
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
by Richard Dawkins
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0393315703/mereislam-20A/
And even though it wasn't directly mentioned, here's the one that covers genetics:
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0199291152/mereislam-20A/
Speaking of books, below I've pasted portions of an excellent review of Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. It expands upon the point that I made above about how scientists, in particular Richard Dawkins, sometimes step outside their realm of expertise and take things too far. I would love to know what Dawkins would say to this, since it certainly seems that he's gone too far. The entire review can be found here, but here are the snippets:
-----------
The single biggest error in the book is that it misstates the question as an opposition between theism and science, when the opposition is between the ontological views of theism and naturalism. This is such a fundamental category error that any subsequent discussion is rendered not only irrelevant but also misleading. The trouble starts at page 2 where Dawkins writes: "'the God Hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis about the universe", which, I dare say, would be news to almost all theists.
So why does Dawkins believe that the theistic hypothesis is a matter for scientific investigation? Because he assumes that naturalism is true and in naturalism any ontological hypothesis can be investigated scientifically (Dawkins thinks). But naturalism opposes theism (naturalism and theism cannot be both true) so by assuming naturalism Dawkins begs the whole question. And, by the way, he does not explain why he thinks that naturalism is true. Apparently his justification goes something like this: the vast majority of scientists are naturalists; science has proven its truth beyond doubt; therefore naturalism is true.
*** S N I P ****
There is no space to mention the many other fallacies in "The God Delusion". It basically just recycles the theme that theism is false because naturalism is true, and that naturalism can't have any problems because after all it is true. What's really amazing is that so many people would be inspired by such a superficial book. It seems you don't need to be a religious fundamentalist to be able to switch off your capacity for critical thought and to full heartedly (or foolish heartedly) embrace non-explanations.
I forgot to mention that Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller's pamphlet, that's also available in print, can be found here:
Islam and Evolution
by Nuh Ha Mim Keller
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm
Enjoy...
I’m not expecting you to take anything solely on my word. However, neither would I expect a flat-earther to believe that the earth is round solely on my word. If I assert that there are no flaws in the theory of evolution or that the earth is round, those are claims to truth. The claim is not its own justification or verification. If you sincerely want to verify it, you could easily do so on your own. The only conceivable obstacle would be religious prejudice.
Evolution may or may not pose a necessary, inescapable dilemma for Muslims. Whether Islamic theology can in fact accommodate evolution is not for me to say, nor is it of any particular interest to me. However, when an Islamic writer, especially one with considerable influence, pits faith against science, then in practice, there is indeed a dilemma. The rejection of evolution on the basis of faith is just deplorable. It is no different than affirming, on the basis of religious faith, that the sun revolves around a flat earth whose moon is made of cheese. It betrays an appalling ignorance of modern science and is, to use a perfectly appropriate phrase, “shamefully ignorant”.
As for whether the evidence indicates that humans evolved from an earlier species, bear in mind, it’s not just biology. Paleontology is an equally vital and relevant field which also confirms the fact of evolution. The fossil record more than amply confirms that evolution from one species to another has indeed taken place, including the evolution of humans from non-human primates.
As for whether Keller is being dishonest, I have no other conclusion to reach when he absurdly suggests that “evolution is not scientific” and that it is merely “a human interpretation, an endeavor, an industry, a literature” – and this based on an appallingly ignorant (or perhaps dishonest?) reading of C. S. Peirce. He ought to know that evolution is categorically scientific. The options are not many: either he’s being dishonest or he’s honestly ignorant. Neither scenario is particular flattering. I gather you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps because he’s a clerical authority of the sort to whom you feel morally duty-bound to display public deference. I have as much reason to give him the benefit of the doubt as I do Bill O’Reilly. No, he strikes me as simply, flatly dishonest.
Regarding the mechanism by which evolution takes place: Darwin merely speculated, without substantial evidence, as to how the process actually works. That was largely conjecture on his part. He stated that confirmation of his theory required research at the cellular level. It is remarkable that his conjecture just happened to be correct. That mechanism—mutation, variation, and selection--was precisely what Gregor Mendel discovered prior to having learned of Darwin’s theory. Moreover, now that we’ve gained a solid, working understanding of the genome, there simply can’t be any question that Darwin’s conjecture was astonishingly accurate. Again, this is something you can easily confirm on your own. As for whether Richard Dawkins appeared to ask the reader to accept evolution on faith, either you didn’t read the fifth chapter or you didn’t understand it, but don’t tell me he didn’t explain how evolution works. That’s just ridiculous.
As to whether non-scientific claims are meaningless, from the standpoint of scientific inquiry, they are flatly meaningless. In so far as they can be neither confirmed nor disconfirmed, they are empty, barren, meaningless claims. They might have “meaning” in some personal psychological sense, but insofar as a truth claim is beyond the scope of scientific verification, it would be categorically meaningless. To invoke an authority to whom Mr. Keller himself appeals, C. S. Peirce held that if an assertion were true, it would bring about some discernible difference in practice. Metaphysical claims are precisely those claims which bring about no such difference—claims about angels, gods, devils, and so forth. To hold private experience—what one supposedly “feels” at the bottom of one’s soul—as a measure of truth is metaphysical and therefore, from the standpoint of Peirce and of scientific inquiry, flatly empty, barren, and meaningless.
An objective discussion on the origin of man or the Universe with men of a “scientistic” persuasion is nearly impossible, for they do not accept the existence of the Immaterial. In such a framework evolution appears as a useful and indispensable postulate. That there is a profound similarity and “gradation” of forms in all living species – and in fact from the inanimate to animate beings – does not prove the evolutionary hypothesis. This gradation was well known to the ancients including Aristotle who made it the basis of his classification scheme. What is often confused in the minds of many, scientists being no exception, is that gradation is not the proof of evolution, it is rather the fact or problem that evolution or any other theory must explain. The evolutionary postulate tries to do this by proving two things: that the more simple forms are found in geological strata that always predate the complex and that the gradation of forms is in fact a continuous one owing to genetic mutation. In fact, however, evolutionists have been unable to demonstrate either since it has been shown that the majority of phyla arise suddenly in the same geologic period and the glaring deficiency of the geologic record in terms of the innumerable intermediate forms required by neo-Darwinism is famous. Now other hypotheses can be offered to explain these deficiencies – theories such as punctuated equilibrium – but needless to say this simply redirects the problem since these new theories require their own proofs.
The contribution of people like Behe, Denton, and Dembski to name a few is to critically assess the theory of evolution in light of the actual mechanisms that are postulated as effecting it: mutations and natural selection. How would a series of mutations result in a new biological feature? What is the rate of mutation? Probabilistically speaking and given the observed rate of mutation, how long would it take for a series of the “right” mutations to occur? Can this even occur in a series or must it occur all at once for the sake of viability, what has been called irreducible complexity? Now biologists do study some of these questions such as the rate of gene mutation under various stresses, however very few dare to draw all the consequences since they know that the time scales involved are not even close to being in support of evolution. On another point, the theory of intelligent design is brilliant in that it asks a simple question: how can one determine if a group of elements is random or “intended.” In fact this question was answered by a rigorous mathematical theory was developed over sixty years ago – called information theory – that sought to eliminate “noise” that usually accompanies data transmissions. We benefit from this theory every time we make a phone call, zip files, or listen to an mp3 (this theory is essential to data compression). Intelligent design is in reality an application of information theory to the sphere of genetic code. To better elucidate this we can draw the following example: suppose one sees a bunch of coins on the ground in the shape of a circle. It would be fair to say that this may have been the result of someone throwing the coins in the air and letting them fall; or it may have been arranged that way intentionally. Furthermore, the circle of coins could have been randomly generated by throwing one coin in the air at a time or throwing them all up at once – the time scale is not important. Now suppose I see thousands of coins arranged on the ground in such a way that they write out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Certainly the probability of that being random is less than the probability of the circle being random. What is important is that the question is a legitimate question. It can and has been dealt with mathematically in a very satisfactory manner. Anyone interested in this subject should read the seminal work by William A. Dembski. No free lunch : why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. In this work Dembski “assesses the complexity of the flagellum on various levels, including its protein parts and its assembly instructions, finding that the amount of CSI contained in the flagellum vastly outweigh the probabilistic resources available in the history of the universe to construct such a structure, absent intelligent design.” (CSI is a term used in information theory and stands for complex specified information.) To forestall any petty objections that intelligent design is “not accepted in the scientific mainstream” we will say that this has no bearing on anything whatsoever. What matters is a theory’s validity not its acceptance.
To shift directions a bit and deal with a more essential problem: the evolutionary postulate is both a metaphysical impossibility and theologically heresy. Metaphysically impossible because it has the higher come from the lower, for example consciousness and subjectivity arising from matter, which is strictly impossible. The miracle of the intelligence is enough to show that the Universe has its origin in the Immaterial and not matter. This is indeed a proof, not a mathematical one, but one that is logical and proportionate to the nature of the question. As for theology, some have argued that evolution is not necessarily inconsistent with the religious creed of Islam, at least as far as plants and animals are concerned and as long as we maintain God’s hand in the direction and order of the process. However, besides the metaphysical error involved, it is obvious that evolution “tends” strongly towards a denial of the spiritual origin of universal existence as well as God’s qudrah, the descent of the soul, and many other matters. This tendency, whose effects are clearly visible in the modern world, should be enough to relegate it to a heretical belief. We must remember that theology is about defending the basic beliefs of the religion which means that we need to discern the logical consequences of a claim such as evolution and not just its most immediate implications. In any case, the fact of evolution’s intrinsic metaphysical impossibility means that it does collide essentially with Islamic doctrine.
Wassalam,
Kareem
Small correction: the discussion on natural selection and the importance of Mendel to evolutionary theory is discussed in the final chapter of TBW.
Here's another useful link:
The Unscientific Myth of Darwininan Evolution and the Qur'an
Hope that helps.
I take it, then, that my earlier point has been confirmed: modern science clearly poses a problem for Muslim fundamentalists, regardless of whether Islamic theology can, in theory, resolve that problem.
Contrary to what religious fundamentalists, whether Muslim or Christian, would like to believe, intelligent design poses no challenge to the evolutionary account of life on earth. At its heart, the ID argument holds that biological life is such that it could not have arisen without intelligent guidance. Because we supposedly cannot explain how biological life could have arisen without intelligent guidance, therefore, it must have arisen through intelligent guidance.
The argument creates an imaginary problem and then proposes an absurd answer; absurd because it couldn’t possibly be confirmed or disconfirmed. It’s a negative argument: unless a natural explanation can be provided, a supernatural explanation is the only possible answer. If a natural explanation is provided, it contradicts the starting premise that no natural explanation can be provided. All natural explanations must therefore be false. This is a supremely idiotic line of reasoning. It’s also intellectual lazy.
Worse, though, it places the advocate of intelligent design in a very, very awkward position. If you want to argue that the rise of any complex entity can only be explained by appeal to a more complex entity, then you have to explain how that more complex entity arose. If you want to argue that because the design of a watch points to a human designer and that this human designer was himself designed by a more complex and intelligent designer, then we are entitled to ask, who designed the Intelligent Designer? If you offer the standard theological answer, namely, that the Intelligent Designer didn’t need to be designed, then there are two appropriate responses. First, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You can’t argue that all complex entities arise from more complex entities, but then make an exception for one of them. There’s no justification for that inconsistency. Secondly, if you argue that the Intelligent Designer didn’t need to be designed, I can easily respond by saying, neither did I.
The theory proposed by Darwin and confirmed by modern biology and paleontology have indeed provided a natural explanation. That explanation obviously offends religious fundamentalists whose spurious religious beliefs impose a mental block which prevents them from accepting provable scientific claims. Fundamentalists like these therefore have no choice but to force themselves to believe that the entire scientific community has been thoroughly deceived -- a claim they feel requires no proof other than to arbitrarily apply the label "scientism". ("Well, they disagree with us. Clearly, they are scientistic.") They also have no choice but to imagine that scientific theories that contradict their spurious religious beliefs must, of necessity, be flawed or “metaphysically impossible”.
Dembski poses no challenge to the evolutionary account of human origins. The man is a charlatan and has no credibility amongst professional mathematicians. The following is an critical examination of Dembski’s work by a superior mathematician called as an expert witness for the Dover trial in 2005:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/experts/shallit.pdf
That same expert has also reviewed No Free Lunch:
http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.txt
When an evolutionary scientist speaks of fossil hominins; or the lingering presence of the defunct yoke sac in the womb of a pregnant woman (a sign of our reptilian heritage); or the evolution of the AIDS virus (a very sobering example of natural selection at work), he or she at least speaks of something real. These are all real forms of proof in favour of the evolutionary account of life on earth. On the other hand, the problems Dembski poses are solely within his religiously perverted head. They’re mere abstractions, though expressed in a language appealing enough to seduce scientifically illiterate religious fundamentalists, many of them ignorant Muslims.
Let it also be borne in mind that Dembski is one of the three clowns who, along with Behe, were sent by the Discovery Institute to tutor Ann Coulter for her book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. No respectable scholar would do such a thing. Could there be anything more pitiful, anything more sad and pathetic, than scientifically illiterate Muslim fundamentalists appealing to the pseudo-scholarly authority of a Christian fundamentalist who lends his fraudulent services to perhaps the most vehemently anti-Muslim voice in North America? It’s all very laughable: Muslim fundamentalists, in their intellectual shallowness and laziness, unwittingly appealing to their own enemies in their holy war against science.
And, I’m sorry, but an anonymous article on an Islamic fundamentalist website from Pakistan proves absolutely nothing. Is that really the best you can offer?
I’ll affirm what I stated before: anyone who denies evolution is a manifest, sublime idiot, whether it be Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, or intellectually shallow and degenerate Muslim fundamentalists allergic to the truth.
Buzzwords like Anonymous, Islamic, Fundamentalist, and Pakistan prove absolutely nothing.
That is not an anonymous article. It is Chapter 2 of the book, Creation of Man, by Sheikh-ul-Islam, Prof. Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. The book has been made available online free of cost so that some sublime idiots may just learn something, you know.
Why yes, as a matter of fact, there is indeed something that you can learn from that absurd article, namely, that an earlier point of mine has been validated: in their holy war against science, fundamentalist Muslims, with their tiny, shallow minds and extremely low intellectual standards, will dimwittedly appeal to pseudo-scholarly authorities who just happen to be ignorant Christian fundamentalists.
That silly, utterly ridiculous article you cited appeals at one point to the authority of Duane Gish, a fundamentalist Christian who takes the book of Genesis literally. He is a Young Earth Creationist, that is, he believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old--and this not on the basis of science, but rather on what his religion tells him. Do you endorse this idiotic claim, too?
More to the point, though, what is wrong with you people? Have you no originality whatsoever? If you want to attack modern science, by all means, go ahead and do so. I’ll happily laugh at you. However, are you so unimaginative and pathetic that you have to appeal to the false authority of Christian fundamentalists, whose beliefs are flatly incompatible with your own?
Once again, I reiterate and will continue to reiterate my earlier point: anyone who denies evolution is a glaring, egregious idiot, manifest and sublime. The author of your article qualifies as just such an idiot, as do his hordes of ignorant fundamentalist readers whose impoverished minds cannot acknowledge blatant falsehood when it’s right before their very eyes.
You are free to dwell in your dark, hopeless abyss of religious superstition and pitiful ignorance. It is clear—as clear, in fact, as anything can be—that religious fundamentalism breeds an implacable hostility to the truth.
Has anyone else ever noticed that it is theology that tries to keep up with the changing scientfic/technolgical paradigms and not the other way around. Societal progress moves with scientific progress and religion modifies itself to stay relavent.
Also, whether people realize it or not, they are benefiting from evolutionary theory put into pratice on a daily baisis. Especially in the medical arena; vaccines, organ transplants, the study of how a virurs works, cancer research, genetics, etc.
Crime fighting as well has benefited tremdously from evolutinary theory put into practice' and helped exonerate the wrongly accused. So we should thank God for Charles Darwin, who was after a truly sincre seeker.
I agree wholeheartedly. Evolution is the very cornerstone of modern biology. People who reject evolution should stop going to hospitals and stop using modern medicine altogether. Instead, they should stick to the medical standards of the medieval era, which is apparently when their brains stopped working.
I should also say, intelligent design is not only bad science, but even worse theology. The idea that evolution from one species to another must be false because it is statistically improbable -- an atrocious piece of pseudo-scholarly fiction that lies at the heart of the intelligent design argument -- has a remarkable consequence: it means that what their god can and can't do is limited by their paltry imagination. It amounts to saying, "If I can't see how it could happen, God did't do it." Could it get any more ridiculous than this? Could there be anything so laughable as religious fundamentalists imprisoning their god within the confines of their tiny, impoverished minds and then calling this god "all-powerful"?
I never thought an agnostic would be the one to spot bad theology. Oh, the irony...
And, I agree with you further: Darwin was a sincere seeker of truth, unlike the perverted illiterates who mercilessly attack him. Intellectual honesty, a virtue that people of faith seem to lack, means having the courage to accept the truth, regardless of where it leads you, regardless of whether it's compatible with one's religion. The religious virtue is the crystalline opposite: standing by religious beliefs even if they are proven to be manifest falsehoods. The more fervently you stand by such falsehoods and the more absurd they are, the greater your piety.
If people of faith are sincerely committed to the truth, they should have no hesitation subjecting their beliefs to critical scrutiny and accepting the consequences. A sincere commitment to the truth means allowing for the possibility that your beliefs could be wrong. That's precisely the virtue of science: it thrives on self-scrutiny and sets the criteria by which a given claim can be proven wrong. By contrast, the implacable, unrelenting hostility by religious fundamentalists toward modern science is the clearest sign of their morbid fear of the truth; the fear that their dear, cherished religious beliefs might, just might, very well be destroyed in the tribunal of reason, logic, and evidence.
In the event that religion clashes with truth, as it has above and inevitably will again, there can be one -- and only one -- legitimate choice in the matter: rejection of religion and a bold acceptance of the truth.
Talking about idiocy, I note with relish that none of the scientific, rational, and logical arguments mentioned in the webpage that I referenced, have been refuted.
I also note that some people have the guts to write whole passages on other people's blogs, but do not have the guts to start their own blog.
As-salamu 'alaykum,
A couple of days ago, I started a thread on DeenPort.com related to this discussion. It can be found here. There you'll find some thoughts, views and opinions not mentioned here.
Just thought I'd let you know...
"Talking about idiocy, I note with relish that none of the scientific, rational, and logical arguments mentioned in the webpage that I referenced, have been refuted."
I get the awful, disheartening impression that you haven't read a single book that challenges your ignorant views on evolution.
That "article" you cited suggests that "no unequivocal scientific evidence exists in favour of evolution."
If you want to have a serious discussion, you can't possibly appeal to ludicrous statements like this and expect to be taken seriously. Evolutionary scientists offer mountains of evidence in favour of evolution. Would you be able to even review any of that evidence before ignorantly dismissing it? To take only a few examples -- examples of which I'm quite certain you are wholly ignorant -- how would you respond to the numerous discoveries of transitional fossils? How would you respond to the recent discovery of "genetic scars" on our DNA, scars inflicted by an ancient disease and which just happen to be shared by other primates? How would you respond to the fact that one of our human chromosomes resulted from the fusion of two chromosomes from our primate ancestors, powerful genetic evidence of our common ancestry? No "unequivocal scientific evidence exists in favour of evolution"? The author of your article is a monumental idiot. His ignorant fundamentalist readers are only more pathetic.
Let me make my point abundantly clear: if a Christian fundamentalist were to criticize Islam as totally false, but without having read a single book on Islam by informed representatives of the Islam itself, what exactly would your reaction be? What would your reaction be, for example, if a Christian fundamentalist were to argue that Islam is false by appealing to an online article written by a pseudo-intellectual, semi-literate Christian clown who knows nothing about Islam?
Mere Muslim: Wa alaykum salam. Thank you for referring us to Deen Port.
Belgian Beer: I am prepared to have a dispassionate discussion with you, provided you stopped using emotionally charged words (awful, disheartening, ludicrous, etc) and stopped insulting scholars. The author of that book, which you insist on calling an “article”, is one of the most renowned Islamic scholars of the present era.
Your question is:
Evolutionary scientists offer mountains of evidence in favour of evolution. Would you be able to even review any of that evidence before ignorantly dismissing it?
Well, here is an excellent review of the history of molecular systematics that arrives at the conclusion that there is no basis for the assumption that “degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness”. (The full article in pdf format is linked to at the webpage I have referenced.) Here is the abstract of the article:
Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships is based on shared derived states (synapomorphies), the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the “molecular assumption.” [My emphasis]
Here are some more important excerpts from the article:
“Claims that humans and chimpanzees are essentially identical molecularly, and therefore the most closely related large-bodied hominoids (humans/hominids and great apes), are now commonplace. Indeed, in a science in which philosophers (Popper 1962, 1968, 1976; Wiley 1975; Patterson 1978) have long argued that nothing can be proven, only falsified, this hypothesis is so entrenched that any explanation of inconsistency in the data is accepted without question.” [p.358]
“Although they did not conceal the fact that they only compared ~90 kb, and that only humans and chimpanzees could be compared for this entire stretch of DNA, their language highlights a larger issue in the communication and understanding of molecular data: how details become submerged in the summation of actual results. No doubt the general public and most scientists would imbue Wildman et al.’s claim with the broadest possible meaning: humans and chimpanzees are almost 100% identical in their DNA. Yet, if one took these authors’ conclusion at face value, the only inference one could make is that humans and chimpanzees are 99.4% identical in a ~90 kb stretch of presumably orthologous coding DNA. Considering that only ca. 2% of the entire metazoan genome is coding, the significance of this comparison, and of all DNA sequence comparisons, diminishes considerably. Nonetheless, one can understand how much psychological effect the “law of large numbers” has on scientists and lay people alike. For it seems impressive that humans and chimpanzees share 99.4% of 90,000 nucleotide bases in contrast to their sharing only a few hundred bones and teeth. But if most of the 99.4% similarity is primitive retention, the comparison is phylogenetically meaningless.” [p.365. Yes, details do become submerged in the summation of actual results, or, as it is said, the devil is in the details.]
“The oldest bacteria existed ~3.6 billion years ago and they were virtually identical morphologically to present-day prokaryotes (Walsh 1992). Yet, in spite of the vast amount of time over which mutations accumulated since prokaryotes first appeared, they remained single celled and morphologically unchanged. Comparisons of aligned bacterial proteins and their corresponding DNA sequences thus reveal how these sequences adapted to environments in which bacteria carrying them thrive; they do not inform how or when these proteins evolved.” [p.366]
“But perhaps the most basic question we can ask is whether the MA is actually biologically tenable. For, aside from UV-induced point mutation, there is no other constant source of mutation in the physical world, and spontaneous mutation rates are low (approximately 10-8 to 10-9) (Maresca and Schwartz 2006). Indeed, cells contain myriad stress and other proteins that eliminate potential change from becoming established in the genome and maintain DNA homeostasis, which can be derailed only by the most extreme Environmental stresses (ibid.). The fact that mutation occurs, albeit at extremely low frequencies, does not mean that it always occurs in germ cells. Rather, since mutation is random, it is perhaps more likely that a somatic cell will be affected than a germ cell. But only altered germ cells have potential evolutionary impact. In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells—DNA, RNA, and proteins and transcription factors necessary, e.g., for DNA repair, protein folding, chaperone functions, and control of signal transduction pathways, which are necessary for the survival of cells and their bearers—are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This does mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006)—which will preclude their persistence into future generations.” [p. 369. My emphasis. Yes, mutation inevitably results in death or debility, so natural selection flies out of the window.]
You have got to be kidding me…
If you want to have a serious discussion with me about evolution, you would first have to demonstrate both competence and honesty. There is zero indication that you possess either quality. In fact, you give me every reason to believe that you possess the opposite qualities: remarkable stupidity and brazen dishonesty.
Notwithstanding your impressive ability to copy/paste chunks of dense scientific text that you likely don’t even understand, that article you cited was co-written written by a very famous evolutionary biologist, Jeffery Schwartz. Do a bit of research. Schwartz has written popular books on evolution, intended for a lay audience (apparently, you don’t even rise to that level). Moreover, his scholarly research has been made available on his faculty web page:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jhs/publications.html
Yes, Schwartz admittedly challenges the widely held view amongst evolutionary scientists that humans descended from chimpanzees. But, what does he argue instead? He claims we descended from Asian orangutans. Personally, I do not feel qualified to evaluate the debate over whether we descended from chimpanzees or orangutans. In any case, I have to ask, even if rhetorically: do you believe we descended from the orangutan?
This is becoming a joke. I’m honestly losing my patience with you. I’d always known that Muslim fundamentalists were a sad and degenerate lot. I’ve always thought they should be thoroughly, thoroughly ashamed of themselves for waging a jihad against science, and even more so for appealing to the false authority of pseudo-intellectual Christian fundamentalists. I didn’t think there could be anything more deplorable and deserving of spite. However, you’ve managed to prove me wrong: for the first time, I have the unique, singular experience of witnessing an ignorant, degenerate Muslim fundamentalist attempting to disprove evolution by unwittingly appealing to the authority of an evolutionary biologist. Ordinarily, I would have several more “emotionally charged words” to share, but I’m honestly rather speechless at this point. No words can capture my sense of sheer bafflement over such extraordinary stupidity.
Regarding that charlatan you call “one of the most renowned Islamic scholars of the present era,” he seems more like one of the most dishonest and scientifically ignorant hucksters of the modern era. He is not only ignorant of modern science, but is immoral enough to misrepresent it in order to spread vulgar falsehoods to an audience of gullible believers eager to mindlessly accept anything their master tells them. The larger his audience, the greater his nefarious influence. You’ve clearly taken that dangerous impostor, that intellectual fraud and swindler, as a role model, as clearly exhibited by your own deliberate ignorance of science and your reprehensible attempt to manipulate the views of a prominent scientist. Your cleric is an exemplar only of poor ethics and even poorer intellectual standards.
Your reverence for that fraud means as little to me as the reverence that a jingoistic American feels for Bill O’Reilly. Both are shamefully ignorant, and no exception should be made in this regard for your beloved cleric. What you are exhibiting is irrational loyalty, and I have nothing but contempt for it. I have to wonder, though: has even Bill O'Reilly stooped so low as to misrepresent the work of respectable scholars?
Again, I will reiterate my original point: anyone who denies evolution is an idiot. That includes Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Jerry Falwell, the hordes and hordes of ignorant, illiterate Muslim fundamentalists who wage holy war against science, and, last, but not least, your shamefully ignorant cleric -– religious fundamentalists and idiots all.
Notwithstanding your not-so-impressive ability to insult people, I still want to discuss issues with you, not people. So I do not want to talk about the moral integrity of Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Jeffery Schwartz, Dr Tahir-ul-Qadri, or even myself.
You have said:
“…that article you cited was co-written written by a very famous evolutionary biologist, Jeffery Schwartz.…Yes, Schwartz admittedly challenges the widely held view amongst evolutionary scientists that humans descended from chimpanzees. But, what does he argue instead? He claims we descended from Asian orangutans.”
Sure enough, Schwartz is an evolutionary biologist, but the ideas of evolutionary biologists (and indeed, all scientists) evolve with time as hypothesis are formed and either refuted or validated. The article that I quoted appeared in Biological Theory in Fall 2006, so it represents the latest in evolutionary thought from Schwartz.
Schwartz did not claim that humans descended from orangutans. He only hypothesized that humans descended from orangutans, and not chimpanzees, based on more similarity with the former. However, in his latest development, he has completely debunked the idea of a molecular clock so cherished by evolutionary biologists. Note his words:
But we do not despair. Acknowledging that organismal development is a tightly controlled process lends itself to a melding of “morphology” and “molecules” in a way that can lead to more realistic models of evolutionary change and to methodological approaches to phylogenetic reconstruction.[Last paragraph of article quoted above.]
In other words, once the idea of a molecular clock is done away with, the whole idea of evolution as envisaged by evolutionary biologists is thrown into quandary. Schwartz freely admits that the situation is almost despairing, but he still has hope of “more realistic models” of evolutionary change. Note that his hope is based purely on hope for hope’s sake and not on any solid scientific evidence.
In any case, Schwartz has disproved your earlier contention that “no one has ever published a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal challenging evolution” since he has shown in his article the confusions, assumptions, and double standards the evolutionary biologists have been guilty of.
"In any case, Schwartz has disproved your earlier contention that “no one has ever published a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal challenging evolution” since he has shown in his article the confusions, assumptions, and double standards the evolutionary biologists have been guilty of."
Now, you're just lying through your teeth in a desperate attempt to save face. These are the sort of sick and twisted games one could expect only from a corrupt politician after being hit by an embarrassing scandal. It is no surprise that such games should be played by a Muslim fundamentalist, whose capacity for immorality and corruption apparently exceeds even that of corrupt politicians.
First, you offered a scientifically illiterate article written by a certified fraud, who cited the authority of a Young Earth Creationist, of all people. When this embarrassing fact was pointed out, you had the audacity to suggest that nothing in that absurd article could be refuted. When presented with three examples of evidence given by evolutionary scientists to support evolution, and when challenged to review the evidence that your discredited, idiotic cleric claims doesn't exist, you dimwittedly presented an article by an evolutionary biologist whose views are flatly incompatible with your own, not to mention those of your stupid cleric. Now, you're trying to seek refuge in further chicanery and manipulation by making the outlandish claim that an evolutionary biologist has published an article challenging evolution.
He does no such thing. Go and read that article carefully. In fact, read your own quotes very, very carefully. The concept of a molecular clock was not developed by Darwin. It wasn't developed until 1962, long after the field of molecular biology first developed, which itself was almost 50 years after Darwin’s death. The molecular clock is like radiocarbon dating: it’s merely a dating method. That's all. Challenging a dating method does not amount to challenging evolution. To argue otherwise is just ridiculous, much like every assertion in that silly article written by your beloved cleric.
That's it, I’ve had enough of you. You’ve forfeited your right to have an honest discussion with me. Your repeated attempts to manipulate the views of a genuine scientist are just disgusting. Such brazen dishonesty only solidifies my worst suspicions about you sick and degenerate Muslim fundamentalists: you are intellectually and morally corrupt, you wage war on truth and resort to outright lies to succeed, and you are entirely beneath the level of honest inquiry.
-----------------------
Mr. Abdurrahman R. Squires: You’ve stated above that “it would be nice if a bit more...actually a lot more...intellectual honesty was brought to the debating table, especially on the religious side. From what I've seen, they're much more guilty of misrepresenting the views of scientists. Sound and thoughtful refutation is one thing, but misrepresentation and deception is quite another.”
I am asking you to call a spade a spade. I’ve read your comments on DeenPort.com. Your commitment to honest inquiry is admirable. You’ve stated that you “abhor double-standards”. We know that Christian fundamentalists are notoriously guilty of “embarrassing, dishonest and intellectually shameful” attacks on science. However, here we have a Muslim fundamentalist leveling just such an attack right before our very eyes. I would like to see a single standard being applied, especially when that standard is being violated on your own blog. Are you willing to condemn this documented case of brazen deceit by one of your fellow believers?
So finally you crack open …
Editors of peer-reviewed journals do not judge their articles by the beliefs of the writers but by what has been put on paper. Likewise, if Duane Gish is a Christian or Jeffery Schwartz is (or is not) an atheist, these scientists can be quoted by Muslims in a scientific context without jeopardizing our beliefs or our integrity. Therein lies a logical fallacy for you to decipher.
You have said:
“The concept of a molecular clock was not developed by Darwin. It wasn't developed until 1962, long after the field of molecular biology first developed, which itself was almost 50 years after Darwin’s death. The molecular clock is like radiocarbon dating: it’s merely a dating method. That's all. Challenging a dating method does not amount to challenging evolution.”
Talk about intellectual dishonesty! I am sorry, but I will NOT allow you to deceive the readers of this discussion by putting them through a labyrinth of confusion as to what exactly is meant by the molecular clock.
First and foremost, let it be known that molecular systematics is the subset of molecular biology that seeks to explain the diversity and origin of life on earth. Now, here is what Schwartz says about molecular systematics:
”… molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption … that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness.” [Second sentence of the abstract of his article.]
Schwartz insists that this assumption is an ASSUMPTION. Where did molecular systematics derive this assumption from? Schwartz answers in the next sentence:
”This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change.” [By molecules, Schwartz means DNA, RNA and the proteins that they code for.]
Schwartz’s conclusion:
”Review of the history of molecular systematics … reveals that there is no basis for the ‘molecular assumption’”
That is, the assumption that “degree of similarity [of DNA, etc between various taxa, e.g. between apes and humans] reflects the degree of relatedness [of the taxa]” has no basis. This most certainly is a challenge on evolution as the term is commonly understood. Such a radical and honest appraisal of the ground reality coming from an evolutionary biologist should register a message in a right-minded brain.
Belgian beer: I really don't have much knowledge concerning the debated issues here (theory of evolution, biology and other related fields of science), but I have a few comments I'd like to address to you. And please excuse my English, as it is a third-fourth language to me; just so you don't use that as an excuse to call me an idiot (I'm sure you'll convince yourself that there are many other reasons for that in the following).
Firstly: Your ugly language, vilifying of people and calling everyone who doesn't agree with your view on things idiots and morans is not very beneficial, scientific or anything near being attractive. You call other people ignorants, but you don't seem to know much about manners yourself. If you had bothered to read a bit about the religion that the 'poor' and 'deluded' anti-science 'fundamentalist Muslims' adhere to, you would know that a good character and treating people courtly would make your readers more interested in what you have to say; rather than calling people idiots and morans of various degrees all the time, maybe you should try something new and write something that doesn't actually repulse people.
Secondly: You claim to adhere to 'science' (although you might not have stated it explicitly), but your way of discussing with others is not helped by the fact that you waste more time maligning people than actually addressing the arguments presented. It would be more beneficial if you could focus on the arguments more and less on which 'fundamentalist' or 'idiot' made the claim. That a Christian makes an argument against evolution, does not mean that the argument itself necessarily must be weak or false, just like an argument presented by an atheist doesn't necessarily have to be 'objective'. The belief in 'No God' is also a belief, and many people (mis)use science to support this belief, instead of the other way around.
Thirdly: Even though something isn't verifiable by science, it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't or cannot be true; while on the other hand something that cannot be falsified, can be true, though not necessarily. So, if people chose to believe in God or religion, and base this on arguments that are not solely 'physical' or 'scientific', but might be mixed with something beyond the realm of science (which science cannot falsify), then that does not make them idiots or fundamentalist morans, even though they may be refusing 'scientific facts' as you view them. There may be other factors, like some spiritual experience, a dream, or just a natural disposition to believe in something metaphysical - God. Note that this is not an argument, nor a proof, but merely an explanation. And yes, you might find it stupid and laugh at it, but know that there are others who might laugh at you and see you as a deluded fool, just as you might think of them, although for other reasons. My point being that in order to have a beneficial dialogue and actually discuss something, we must get over calling each other names all the time and instead focus on the matter at hand.
Regards
If an evolutionary biologist were actually to challenge evolution – the very idea of which is boldly idiotic, but let’s entertain it just for a moment, even if only for humour’s sake –he would explicitly say so. He would make it abundantly clear, taking every effort to remove all possible doubt and ambiguity, that he is clearly and flatly challenging evolution. There would, moreover, be an obvious consequence: an uproar in the scientific community.
Schwartz does not challenge evolution, nor does he anywhere explicitly say so. And there certainly hasn’t been an uproar over a challenge he never made. It’s clear that you could arrive at such an absurd conclusion only by twisting his words. That alone speaks volumes about your level of personal and intellectual integrity. Moreover, that he publishes scholarly and popular books documenting evidence of evolution ought to make the obvious even more painfully obvious: he supports evolution, he does not challenge it. What part of that do you not understand? Again, no words can adequately capture the astonishing idiocy behind the very suggestion that an evolutionary biologist challenges evolution. If Jeffrey Schwartz really has challenged evolution, why would he publish books documenting incontrovertible evidence of evolution? If he challenges evolution, why would he himself try to explain how it works? Also, have you not read title of the journal in which the article you cited was published? It’s called Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution, and Cognition. According to the journal’s website, Biological Theory “is devoted to theoretical advances in the biological and cognitive sciences with an emphasis on the conceptual integration afforded by evolutionary and developmental approaches” (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/biot/1/1).
Secondly, you seem to have a very painful point of confusion. There are two separate issues: evolution and natural selection. Evolution means descent with modification. We know that evolution has taken place. It’s a fact. We have ample proof of it. That proof comes from multiple fields of research, including biology and paleontology. Schwartz himself provides extensive proof. Only a raw idiot, like Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, or your beloved cleric, could deny this proof.
Natural selection is something different. It is not synonymous with evolution. Natural selection is merely the proposed mechanism by which evolution takes place. Darwin proposed that mechanism. He was not original in that respect. Others had arrived at the same theory independently of Darwin. It just so happens that natural selection has since become widely accepted as the most plausible explanation.
As I stated earlier, there has been plenty of legitimate – and sometimes fierce -- debate amongst evolutionary scientists. One such debate concerns the role of natural selection in evolutionary change. For example, Stephen Jay Gould famously challenged the central Darwinian claim that natural selection accounts for each and every feature of evolutionary change. In contrast to the prevailing Darwinian view, Gould and Richard Lewontin proposed their now-famous “spandrel” theory, according to which numerous biological features are merely fortunate by-products of natural selection, not direct products of natural selection. There has been a huge controversy over this. That does not mean that Gould challenges evolution. In his book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Dan Dennett takes Gould to task for departing from the prevailing Darwinian view. Dennett also reviews his famous debate with biolinguist Noam Chomsky, who controversially argues that natural selection alone cannot account for the rise of the language faculty. Chomsky famously challenges the prevailing Darwinian view, arguing instead that other natural factors must also have played a role in giving rise to the human capacity for speech. That does not mean he challenges evolution. Another point of traditional Darwinian theory is gradualism, the idea the change occurs in small, incremental steps. Gould challenged this Darwinian claim, as well, with his famous theory of punctuated equilibrium. He also challenged the importance of adaptation, also very important in traditional Darwinian theory. He was hammered for this by John Maynard Smith. Gould, in turn, was explicitly critical of what he called “Darwinian fundamentalism” (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151). Again, none of this means he ever challenged evolution.
Schwartz’s views similarly challenge prevailing Darwinian views. However, what you would like impressionable readers to believe is that by challenging those views, Schwartz is somehow challenging evolution itself. That is just a vulgar lie. It is also incredibly naive. First, you ignore the fact that Schwartz proposes a rival, naturalistic theory of evolutionary change, one in which environmental change, and not natural selection, is the primary factor. He does not discount natural selection altogether. He merely reduces its importance. Secondly, you ignore the fact that he’s written books documenting the evidence for evolution, thereby undermining your laughable claim that he challenges evolution. Arguing that Jeffrey Schwartz challenges evolution is like arguing that Stephen Jay Gould challenges evolution. It is a vulgar lie and a deliberate misrepresentation of a scientist’s views. It’s the type of claim made by desperate frauds like Philip Johnson, who manipulate the findings of bona fide scientists to promote their perverted anti-evolutionary agenda.
I think the picture is becoming quite clear: you’re far more concerned with misleading and misinforming others than engaging in a sincere inquiry -- refusing to answer forthright questions, changing the subject to avoid those questions, misrepresenting the views of a prominent scientist, and even telling outright, vulgar lies.
Your claim that Jeffrey Schwartz has published an article challenging evolution is FALSE. It is also an outright lie.
-----------
Mr. Abdurrahman R. Squires: This discussion is of great interest to me as it reveals a great deal about the current state of Muslim attitudes toward modern science. I'm going to invite people from other forums to join this discussion. That might take a bit of time, so kindly be patient. I would like others to witness firsthand the ignorance and chicanery of Muslim fundamentalists, which I feel deserves greater public attention. Fortunately, it has been receiving some attention in the British press (see for example: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1714171,00.html). It will also be a good lesson in the ethics of Muslim fundamentalism. I can’t say whether comments will exactly start pouring in, but in any case, I strongly urge you not to arbitrarily censor those comments.
I am also going to contact Professor Schwartz and inform him that his views are being deliberately misrepresented by a Muslim fundamentalist in the comments section of this blog. If I receive a reply, I will forward it to you and ask that you kindly post it for your readers.
-----------
Mr. Imran bin Munir: Concerning “ugly language,” read the title of the present post.
Concerning Christian arguments against evolution, that’s already been discussed above.
Concerning what science can prove or disprove, that’s also already been discussed above.
And when it all comes down to it, there will inevitably be conflict between faith of any sort and science. Read on before you become to inflamed please!
I'll be honest. I read about this on the Dawkins website. I was raised a Catholic and have a pretty intimate knowledge (in the deuteronomy is a complete farce and John is a raving madman sense) of the bible. More so then most people who claim that they have read it and then can't even tell me of the sick tale of Lot.
In response to the cognitive dissonance I experienced trying to reconcile the bible with my ascending lessons in natural science, morality, geology and the nature of the world in general, I chose atheism as the logical escape from the paradoxes of faith (christian in my experience) presented to me (all covered before and let's not debate them here - I'm not out to patronize as some of my born again friends do). My experience with Islam however is quite limited.
Which is why I was surprised to see more thought and agreement (in mere muslim's first posts at least) then I first prepared myself for. But there was a couple of points I'd like to weigh in with.
First, my take on the God Delusion was this. There are problems with the concept of God that we are coming to realize may be resolved. And he raises valid points with respect to the non-overlapping magisteria business. If people are going to invoke clerics (even respected professors, I'll read Nuh Ha Mim Keller's article when I get the chance) in critically assessing Science and Evolution, then Science should be allowed to do likewise with faith, religion and God. Whether or not you think God testable because he is immaterial or exists outside our univerese certainly becomes debatable if he is a personal and interventionist god, appearing at will in our universe and not a deist start it and let it go sort of God. Leaving dozens of different holy books for us to debate his existence in the hope we find his/it's/their way as opposed to the others seems, well, confusing, subjective and difficult at best. Using more rigorous, scientific methods to deduce his existence or non-existence may be more logical and eventually, fruitful. And NO I am not an ID proponent - to prove God does/doesn't exist isn't the same as attempting to disprove other scientific theories simply because they challenge a biblical god's existence. Establishing that he does exist, attacking everything else that condradicts it and assuming your theory as the new default is the wrong way to go about it I think. Not exactly good, evidence based scientific method.
Further, your prior prejudices would affect your interpretation of the book. I consider it a good, light review of some potential problems with faith (particularly christian, that which i am familiar with). It isn't perfect, wasn't spectacularly ground breaking and left me wanting in some areas (I guess it's hard to address such a topic in one small book) but by and by it hilights a lot of difficulties with faith and is a good general review. I can understand however if you do have faith, why you would feel some (possibly subconscious) hostility towards it. It's only human to feel even just a little suspicious of something that challenges your status quo. Whenever I read about an answers in genesis article about carbon dating being false ergo the flood occurred I start to boil! And when it comes to matters of science and faith clashing, it's impossible to remove all bias.
Second, it seems there has been a lot of debate recently regarding the information content of DNA, similarities between species and the role of natural selection and mutation on the evolution of genomes (simplified perhaps but essentially, without this, the organism cannot change and evolution is harder to substantiate). I read Schwartz's article with interest as I wasn't aware that the Molecular Assumption was only that; I thought it was a little more concrete. Having just completed a genetics subject however, 2 things spring to mind. That the genome is incredibly complex and transcription is very well regulated.
However, mutations can and often do happen. Of the three billion odd base pairs that make up our genome, at least a small number of mistakes are made per every cell cycle, generally about 8 hours to replicate 3 billion pairs - no mean feat considering our complex chromosomal arrangement as opposed to prokaryotes which replicate much, much quicker. The fidelity of the mistake correction systems is very good, but even 99.999% efficacy will see mistakes in time and most are benign or occur in the 98% of the genome that is "junk". When these accumulate, cell processes, especially apoptosis/progammed cell death, become affected and malignancies develop.
Before this develops onto a tangent I'll make my point. When a prokaryote genome incorporates a plasmid during replication (transposing), that say codes for resistance to penicilin antibiotics, it is in a manner undergoing a mutation and increasing the information content of it's genome. It is a mutation that shows evolution (micro-evolution if you will)working beneficially and and is a good example of evolution working under our noses. I chose this example because the extremely rapid and more poorly regulated nature with which prokaryotes replicate that lends them to study. Additionally, it's not exactly ethical to strap people onto a lab table and try and initiate molecular changes that may have a molecular impact ie. Irradiating or modifying germ cells and observing outcomes. We can watch evolution in progress. keeping in mind our current concept of neo-darwinian molecular evolution has only been around for give or take 50 years.
Our understanding of the genome and it's minutiae and changes are nascent but increasing daily. And when we gain a more complete understanding of the genome and concepts such as Molecular Assumption we can more effectively gauge evolution's place in it. Geology, palaentology, morphology all overwhelmingly tend to support it and thus far the evidence still indicates this.
Finally, coming back to Schwartz. I stipulated the above for what I say below. This is one scientists dissent on one aspect of evolution (molecular assumption)that was hypothesized as a support facet if you will. More will need to be produced for molecular assumption to be completely overturned.
Although Caccone and Powell
(1989) believed that the MA could not be tested—because
of the internal consistency of that assumption—we believe
it can. First, since the MA derives from an interpretation of
degrees of similarity that paralleled a morphologically based
phylogeny, a molecularly based theory of relationship can be
tested with a morphologically based one (Schwartz 1986).
Second, the supposed internal consistency of the MA has been
and is tested and seemingly falsified by those molecular phylogenies that do not corroborate a “favored” or “expected” phylogenetic scheme
The above passage seems to me a good working hypothesis put forward by a good scientist challenging a prior assumption. Seemingly falsified is the important point. He hasn't said irrevocably overturned and it was a sample that applied to phylogenies experienceing disonance with their anticipatedoutcomes which isn't to say these correlations don't exist at all! Nevertheless, this is great! The object of science isn't to try and uphold established ideals - that's ID. When someone like schwartz does this, we as a community are gratified!
Fayazz Khan, you raise a point. But I just plugged into my journal search engine, Blackwell Synergy. On it I punched in molecular assumption. In it came 23,664 articles including several important, relevant ones that compare the rate of morphological change with genetic change. This article supports and conflicts with Schwartz's;
Although it is commonly taken for granted that molecular
evolution proceeds independently of morphological change,
it is important that the association between morphological
and molecular rates is thoroughly tested.
and,
At the broadest taxonomic level, there is undoubtedly
an association between adaptation and rates of molecular
evolution, for example, rapidly evolving viruses have the
greatest rates of DNA sequence evolution. But there is little
indication of a more general relationship between morphological
and molecular rates: Lineages with high rates of morphological
change do not have notably higher rates of molecular
change. A close relationship between morphological
and molecular rates is