In a a blog post, Pete Boettke presents some interesting and innocuous ruminations about paradigm shifts and progress in science and, then, suddenly, after a few paragraphs, makes a startling categorical claim:
“Amateur economists, individuals without advanced degrees, or those not teaching in research universities, who spend their time writing in blogs or in journals not listed by SSCI cannot pull off the desired paradigm shift. This is a form of economic discourse, perhaps even an important one, but not one that matters scientifically. . . Only outsiders with a claim to inside legitimacy can move ideas from being outside to those that are now inside.”
Thus speaketh the Pope of Austrian Economics. As a humble vocational economist on the outside looking in and whose work counts for naught scientifically, I would like to demur from this apodictic and a priori judgment.
The empirical evidence seems at best to be mixed on this point. Carl Menger was a mere journalist, amateur economist and an outsider even in the academic backwater that was then Austrian academia, when he published the book that would cause an international revolution in economic theory that ultimately destroyed both the British classical and German historicist paradigms. Likewise Boehm-Bawerk was ensconced in the backwater University of Innsbruck when he wrote the great Mengerian treatise that would catapult him to international fame and forever revolutionize the way economists thought about capital and interest while establishing Austrian economics as perhaps the leading theoretical paradignm before 1914. Contrariwise, the paradigm of the French liberal school, which had enjoyed unchallenged dominance in French economics for three-quarters of a century was overthrown almost overnight when in 1878 the French government began to establish chairs in economics in all Law Faculties in France and staffed them with outsider lawyers and economists sympatheetic to the German Historical school. These examples could easily be multiplied.
If one really wishes to think seriously about progress in science, he must abstain from off-the-cuff apriori judgments on blog sites and busy himself with sustained and careful study of the historical evidence. He then may render a considered opinion in an academic article or book. An exemplary model of such an endeavor and a good place to start examining the evidence is Guido Huelsmann’s great biography of Mises, The Last Knight.of Liberalism.
{ 84 comments }
← Previous Comments
Peter: “The expectation of seeing things like “half reptile half bird” is a gross misunderstanding of evolution…”
TLWP: “Indeed just one Rome wasn’t built in a day, why should there be absurd hybrid ‘transitional forms’?”
You guys don’t know much about the theory of evolution do you? I guess I’ll have to teach you evolution before you can appreciate creationism. Darwin predicted the existence of such fossils as proof of his theory. Paleontologists devote their careers to finding such fossils. The search for the missing link has been the holy grail for evolutionary scientists.
TLWP: “Even if evolution could be disproven from a theory to a preferred notion, how does that prove Creationism?”
If life can’t occur by natural means alone, that suggests a Creator, doesn’t it? It’s very, very basic cause and effect reasoning: causes must be sufficient for the effect. For example, if you watch a car set a speed record, you wouldn’t assume it had a two-stroke chain saw motor in it. In the same way, the effects that are the universe and mankind must have a cause greater than the effects.
TLWP: “Finding out the start of what is recognised as living would denifitely finish religious theories off.”
It certainly would, and don’t you think scientists have been trying? I recently read about a scientist who claims he will be able to create single-celled organisms that will live for a fraction of a second. It will be very interesting to see if he can do it.
Fundamentalist,
“Why don’t you guys stop with the lame insults and post some real evidence for evolution if you think you have any.”
No insults. I read about this when I was a child and found it on the Internet. A very basic example of natural selection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
And what if the Creator is nothing like the one suggested in the Bible? What if the Creator created the universe billions of years ago and simply enjoyed his creation over the aeons and is not a morally pure agent nor has any inkling or caring for the human race? As I pointed out disproving evolution does not prove Biblical Creationism any more than showing your boat is not seaworthy makes mine suddenly seaworthy.
The search for the missing link has been the holy grail for evolutionary scientists.
Err…sorry, no. The “missing link” in the sense you (appear to) mean is creationist nonsense nobody in their right mind takes seriously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
What you fail to understand is that putting things into boxes (“bird”, “reptile”, etc.), drawing a line between them, comes from noting differences between them, not the other way around. Anything that fit the description “half bird half reptile” wouldn’t be in either the “bird” or the “reptile” box, so you wouldn’t recognize it as “half bird half reptile” but as some other category. Only when they’re sufficiently different that you can put them in separately, clearly labeled boxes, do you recognize them as being different things – and then of course you can’t find any “transitional species”, by definition.
Peter: “The “missing link” in the sense you (appear to) mean is creationist nonsense nobody in their right mind takes seriously.”
Gee, if Wikipedia says it, it must be right. Wrong! If one Wikipedia article is all you’re willing to read, then you’re obviously not interested in the subject. So I won’t waste your time with much more evidence. But many evolutionists have recognized the problem of the lack of intermediate fossil evidence. Roger Lewin wrote a whole book about it, “Bones of Contention.” And it was the main reason Stephen Gould invented punctuated equilibrium. The writer of the Wikipedia article cleary wants to define terms and assess evidence in such a way as to promote evolution, but more honest people disagree with him.
If you would read even a high school text book on evolution, you would know that the standard answer given for the lack of transitional fossils is the speculation that transitions from one type of animal to another took place rapidly and in isolated places. In other words, evolutionists are admitting they lack the evidence for their theory, but try to change the subject to why that evidence is missing. I find it strange that people would claim to be scientists when science requires evidence and they have so little of it. Sounds more like superstition to me.
Why are you hijacking the thread with your creationist impulses?
But many evolutionists have recognized the problem of the lack of intermediate fossil evidence… The writer of the Wikipedia article cleary wants to define terms and assess evidence in such a way as to promote evolution, but more honest people disagree with him.
“The problem” isn’t the same “problem” you believe it is, or have assigned it to be. You’ve merely redefined “the problem” in a such a way as to promote creationism. “Honest creationist” is an oxymoron — or perhaps I should say the fossil evidence has never shown the existance of one. Now there is your missing link.
So I won’t waste your time with much more evidence.
Thank you. Do cats eat bats? Do bats eat cats? It doesn’t seem to matter which way it is put because I am talking to a creationist.
IMHO: “I read about this when I was a child and found it on the Internet. A very basic example of natural selection.”
That’s a very good point. I remember that example, too. But what the moth experiment demonstrates is what is called microevolution, which is changes from one species to another. In layman’s terms, it’s selective breeding; the same thing ranchers did to create a breed of cattle without horns. No one doubts that microevolution, or selective breeding occurs; we see the results everywhere. Darwin’s contribution was to suggest that selective breeding could not only create new species of the same animal, but create a completely new animal, which is called macroevolution.
Evolution promoters use a kind of bait and switch technique: they use selective breeding to prove that microevolution takes place, then claim that their microevolution proofs are also proof that macroevolution happens. Almost all of the evidence for evolution is micro; the evidence for macro is almost non-existent.
In the moth example, environmental changes might create all kinds of moths, maybe even plaid, but that’s not what Darwin was interested in. He wanted a mechanism to create new animal forms, such as a bird from a reptile, or a man from a monkey.
TLWP: “As I pointed out disproving evolution does not prove Biblical Creationism…”
You’re right. It doesn’t. And I think I said that above. All creation science does is 1) prove the scientific impossibility of evolution, 2) prove the existence of an intelligent creator. As to what that creator may be like, that’s an issue for comparative religion and philosophy, not science.
I have had a related conversation with Fundamentalist on the “Malthus and Mein Kampf” thread about creation science. Relevant portions excerpted here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/10/30/climate-science-a-fundamentalist-creation-science-approach-update.aspx
Funadmentalist, I’m curious if you have done any reading into “Symbiogenesis”, which is an attempt at understanding how it is that complex cells (including our own) carry organelles such as mitichondria that have their own DNA and separately reproduce. Chloroplasts in plants are similar organelles. Symbiogenesis views these organelles as arising from originally independent bacteria that became a part of more complex cells through a process of endo symbiosis. Do creationists address this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis
TT: “Symbiogenesis views these organelles as arising from originally independent bacteria that became a part of more complex cells through a process of endo symbiosis. Do creationists address this?”
I didn’t have time to do an extensive search, but here is one creationist web site that talks about it: http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive.html
Here’s another on symbiogenesis: http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
Here’s a brief mention: The most popular evolution theories today are Neo-Darwinism (mutations plus selection) and Punctuated Equilibrium. Proponents of both these theories point out the impossibilities inherent in their competitor. Other (mostly discarded) theories of evolution include Maximum Entropy Production (MEP), Population Dynamics, Facilitated Variation, Semi-Meiosis, Niche Construction, Saltation, Panspermia, Metabolic Rate Theory, Zoogenesis, Lamarckism, Orthogenesis, Pangenesis, Gaia Theory, Evo-Devo, Symbiogenesis. There are many more.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5047/
There are a lot of misunderstandings even among people who should know what they’re talking about, let alone creationists (who not only don’t, but often deliberately misconstrue what little they do!). Strictly speaking, your use of “neo-Darwinism” is wrong (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism ); what you mean is the “modern evolutionary synthesis” referred to in that article. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium which points out that the latter is merely an insignificant “wrinkle” on the former, not a new and inconsistent thing.
Theories about how important various things in evolution, etc., have no impact on evolution as a process.
Heh heh. Notice how you have to accept portions of evolutionary theory whilst trying to disprove it? Micro-evolution doesn’t prove macro-evolution? Interestingly, free-markets are micro-planned not macro-planned yet might appear macro-planned from a distance. After all, who says evolution has to have necessarily any thing ‘macro’ about it as though macro- actually implies some grand guide overseeing where evolution goes? Each organism does its best to adapt to its surroundings and many a species when well suited to an environment will not change even for millions of years. The fact that artificial breeding of pet canines and birds can allow for strange fast mutations that don’t emerge in their wild counterparts can show how quickly organisms can change to suit a different environment. At the end of the day the main ingredient for evolution is time. Lots and lots of time.
TLWP: “After all, who says evolution has to have necessarily any thing ‘macro’ about it as though macro- actually implies some grand guide overseeing where evolution goes?”
Darwin said it. He claimed that it was necessary to find fossils that showed the transition between types of animanls (macroevolution), not just variation a species, to prove his theory.
The debate between evolutionists and creationists is over the concept of transitions from one type of animal to another. No one has ever denied that variation happens within animal types. We have to distinguish between micro and macro evolution because evolutionists are dishonest: they use microevolution proofs as proofs for macroevolution without telling people that’s what they’re doing. The only evidence for macroevolution is the fossil record, and it’s very limited.
Yeah right, sure!
Here are a couple of choice quotes from the book Telling Lies For God by Aussie Geology Professor Ian Plimer:
However, the creationist movement commonly accuse scientific organisations and scientists of fraud without providing evidence. In Telling Lies for God, the evidence of creationist fraud is provided. In contrast, in the [Aussie] creationist magazine Ex Nihilo (vol. 7, 3, 1985), the anonymous review of the U.S.A. National Academy of Science book Science and Creationism (1984) states:
“Its greatest weakness is that its argument concerning palaentology in which it is guilty of public fraud. It claims that hundreds of thousands of fossil organisms have been found as evolutionary transitions since Darwin’s time. This is just so devoid of truth that it can’t be called anything else, from men and women who should know better, except a lie.”
This review is anonymous. No creationist had the courage to put their name to the review to provide the proof of fraud and to prove that the National Academy of Science has published lies. If the Academy was really guilty of fraud, this would have been major worldwide news, however we only learn of it in the creationist cult literature.
…
Modern molecular biology is the most potent and powerful proof of evolution and if evolution did not exist, then blood types could not be measured, diseases could not be detected and parentage could not be determined.
…
Creationists also ignore the fact that the fossil record responds to changing palaeoenvironments and that there is a worldwide ordered sequence of life in the fossil record. All of this was known before Darwin. Furthermore, the fossil record does not need to be used to prove evolution. It is all around us in the great diversity of living organisms.
…
In the creationist dogma, the ark carried all species which exist on Earth today. Hence, the whole impossible voyage of the ark and the mythical global great flood would have had to have a 100 per cent survival rate.
There is, however another possibility considered by creationists when they try to deflect argument. Some creationists talk about microevolution and how freshwater fish might have evolved from saltwater fish in the 4,000 years since the flood. Unfortunately, for such a scenario to exist, the evolution rates required are millions of times faster than those proposed by science. One can not talk about microevolution without accepting macroevolution and, as we see so often, creationists’ own arguments disprove their own concocted dogma.
}>:P
Dang italics didn’t work out the way I wanted to! The tags looked right!
TWLP: “One can not talk about microevolution without accepting macroevolution…”
Why? Evolution does not claim that new species are created by evolution, but that new animals are created. A bird is not a species of reptiles. It’s a whole different animal.
Evolutionists claim that the process by which new species of the same animal appear also creates new kinds of animals. Creationists say that can’t happen and point to the gaps in the fossil record as evidence. Paleontologists have found a few fossils that they claim are transitional creatures, for example, half-way between dog and horse. But very little of such evidence exists, and much of that evidence is controversial.
TLWP: “Modern molecular biology is the most potent and powerful proof of evolution and if evolution did not exist, then blood types could not be measured, diseases could not be detected and parentage could not be determined.”
Modern molecular biology is also the most potent proof of creation. See Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box.” The stuff about blood types is nonsense. Creationists recognize that children have parents and are very much like their parents because of DNA. That’s all that is required to match blood types.
Paleontologists have found a few fossils that they claim are transitional creatures, for example, half-way between dog and horse.
Who says dogs turned into horses, or vice versa? Who says men turned into monkeys, or vice versa? They are all modern (present day) creatures, so no one with a shred of sense would say it. You’re simply disingenuous. Do cats eat bats? Do bats eat cats? It doesn’t matter which way I put it — they are simply words cast to the air and I am talking to a creationist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
http://caninehealthnutrition.com/DogBreeds/origin-and-evolution-of-the-dog.html
greg: “Who says dogs turned into horses, or vice versa?”
That’s textbook evolution.
More precisely, it is the textbook creationist version of evolution.
As an Australian, who lives with evolved fauna and flora all around him, evolution makes sense. We have here a possum with skin between its’ legs and arms, and it uses these to glide between trees, going from one to another. This is an animal whose decendents could become true flying possums, like bats. This would be classified as a possum, but it can glide. Is it a transitional form? If any bones survived scavengers, how would future taxonomers classify it?
To any young-Earthers out there, where do diseases come from? If only Noah and his family are the ancestors of all humans, did they have every type of disease with them? Including all those venereal diseases? How did they live so long with such illnesses? Or did these different illnesses evolve later?
Even more so as the Great Flood is a major literal historical event to creationists.
Something else to consider- Chapter 1 of Genesis ends with God thinking at the end of Day 6, ‘Very good job!’ Humans had been made at the end of the day, and told to eat fruit and be fruitful and replenish the earth.
Chapters two and three, Adam and Mrs. Adam, have God expelling them from the Garden, after inventing sin. How can this be the same (very good) day? I think that Adam was a new line of humans, created later. The Flood could then wipe out the sinful Adamites, leaving Noah as the only line of Adam, but not the only human beings! The flood could then have been local, covering the land near Eden. When the dove flew away, it would be because she had met other doves, and chose to stay with them- doves that had not drowned, because their lands and trees were not destroyed. When you apply logic to Genesis, you see a lot of things that you weren’t told.
Adam was not, for example, created immortal. The tree of life was there to keep him undying. Being expelled from Eden, and the tree of Life, is what caused him to age. Therefore Death must have been latent in him.
Adam’s line, through Noah, eventually produced the Semitic peoples, and that led to Jesus, whose teachings led to the modern world.
Fundamentalist, the point on symbiogenesis is that all higher forms of life directly depend on lower forms of bacteria that they included and then evolved with over millions of years.
If God simply made us – and all other animals (from protists on up) and plants (from algae on up) – as we are, then why would he create us with cells populated by essential little critters that have their own DNA (and are clearly related to each other across species as well)?
BTW it’s interesting to read about how a Sumerian Kings List showed Noah’s father ruling Shurrupak some 18,000 years before the Great Flood!
nick: “This would be classified as a possum, but it can glide. Is it a transitional form?”
No. It’s a possum that can glide. We have squirrels that can, too. To be a transitional creature, it would have to be between two types of animals, such as a reptile with feathers, for example.
nick: “where do diseases come from?”
New diseases, such as HIV, happen because of microevolution among bacteria and viruses. That’s consistent with creationism.
nick: “Chapters two and three, Adam and Mrs. Adam, have God expelling them from the Garden, after inventing sin. How can this be the same (very good) day?”
There is no reason to believe it was the same day.
TT: “why would he create us with cells populated by essential little critters that have their own DNA…”
I can’t explain why God did everything he did. But let’s consider the answer that evolutionists give for everything that seems odd about their theory. Evolutionists say that a change enhanced the survival of the organism or animal. And that answer explains everything, even opposites. But even evolutionists can see that a theory than explains everything explains nothing. You can’t use it to predict anything because it could also predict the opposite.
Here’s a couple more links:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/HalfaWing.HTM
Fundamentalist:
1. You sidestep my point.
It is easy to see that complex, eukaryotic cells – starting with amoebas and protists and including the first plants like basic algae – rely for essential functions on what were once symbiotic bacteria but then gradually became organelles, organelles that still contain their own DNA and replicate like bacteria. Because sperm are relatively tiny compared to eggs, virtually all animal mitochondria is inherited from mothers. http://www.cytochemistry.net/cell-biology/mitochondria_lifecycle_graduate.htm
It is easy to see from the nature of essential organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts that all higher life evolved from simpler life forms that first took up those organelles as bacteria.
2. a theory than explains everything explains nothing
This, of course, is a strawman. There is no single, simple expanation for evolution, but rather a complex understanding based on different mechanisms that continue to be refined – as there is always more to be understood.
Ongoing debates and growth in knowledge about evolution’s various mechanisms don’t challenge the main theory that, based on success in reproduction, animals evolve. Sybiogenesis is one recently discovered mode of evolution; making use of the huge library of our “junk” DNA is apparently another that can account for rather rapid evolution.
Is “intelligent design” science? Does it make any predictions or offer any explanation whatsoever, other than that an “intelligent designer” did it? Evolution offers many predictions that can be tested, such as whether or not the same patterns of junk DNA and retroviruses that have incorporated themselves into DNA (endogenous retroviruses) and their locations will be found in species that scientists believe had a common ancestor, but not others. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/dna_virus.html
More on junk DNA and endogenous retroviruses here:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2007/09/if_its_junk_can_we_get_rid_of.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA
Fundamentalist, some fundamentalists insist that when the Bible says ‘Day’, it must mean only a 24-hour day as we understand the term. Day 6 in Genesis, chapter 1, has humanity being told to subdue the whole earth. Therefore some fundamentalists say that this must be the same moment that Adam was expelled from Eden, because they believe that Adam is the first human. I agree that these are different days.
Also, the Bible never says anything against evolution. Things are produced after their own kind, but micro-changes obviously happen. Over long periods of time, these small changes would build up into big ones. If you allow lots of time, then you are allowing evolution. Evolution happens in societies, gradually producing new kinds. If the days are not literal, or if Day 6 is NOT when Adam gets his marching orders, then lots of time is plausible.
So what is your objection?
Fundamentalist,
About the moth. That was an example of species adaptation that occurred rather quickly. Most evolution occurs very slowly over a long expanse of time.
Admittedly, attempts at adaptation or spontaneous mutation frequently fail. If I remember correctly, it is not uncommon for mutations to be sterile. At any rate, that is why evolutionary paths are full of detours that go nowhere with only a relatively few paths that have made it to the present day.
I believe that evolution and creationism are compatible. It is my belief that God created the universe, set it in motion and is allowing it to play out. No interference. Sort of a universal free will.
TT: “It is easy to see from the nature of essential organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts that all higher life evolved from simpler life forms that first took up those organelles as bacteria.”
As for the scientific value of symbiogenesis, it seems that creation science leaves that to mainstream scientists to figure out. It doesn’t seem to have much credibility among the mainstream. From the creationist perspective, all you have offered is a mechanism whereby macroevolution might have occurred. You still have to show that macroevolution did in fact occur. But for that you have to rely on the fossil record, which doesn’t exist for macro.
Your attitude strikes me as being typical of evolutionists. Most don’t care whether evidence exists for macroevolution or not. Evidence is not important to them. All they care about is having a logical mechanism whereby it could have happened. It reminds me of the old guy who lived upstairs in “Friends.” When he complained about something disturbing his cat, and was challenged that he didn’t have a cat, he would reply “I could have a cat.”
nick: “Also, the Bible never says anything against evolution.”
Not directly, but it does say that death didn’t occur until the fall of Adam and Eve. Evolution requires millions of years of death and destruction before man appeared.
Nick: “Over long periods of time, these small changes would build up into big ones. If you allow lots of time, then you are allowing evolution.”
That’s true, but you have enormous amounts of evidence for microevolution, almost none for macro. All the theory of evolution provides is a possible mechanism for it to work. But you still have to prove that it did work, which requires the fossil record. It also requires the denial of the most fundamental truth of biology: life can come only from living things; never from nonliving matter.
IMHO: “About the moth. That was an example of species adaptation that occurred rather quickly.”
That’s true, but it’s still just an example of microevolution. Most of the evidence cited for evolution is micro, but creationists have no problem with microevolution. Farmers and ranchers have practiced it for centuries. It’s the macro part that lacks evidence.
IMHO: “I believe that evolution and creationism are compatible. It is my belief that God created the universe, set it in motion and is allowing it to play out. No interference. Sort of a universal free will.”
Most Christians that I know believe in theistic evolution in which God guided the process. Some people call this the “god of the gaps” theory. I don’t happen to agree with theistic evolution, mainly because of the requirement of massive amounts of death before the fall of Adama and Eve.
But strictly on a scientific basis, I can’t see the evidence for evolution. I think the willingness of people to accept a theory that violates the fundamental principles of physics and biology and has very little evidence for it is a sign that they are willing to believe anything as long as it does away with God.
Not directly, but it does say that death didn’t occur until the fall of Adam and Eve. Evolution requires millions of years of death and destruction before man appeared.
This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. Adam and Eve ate things other than the Forbidden Fruit. They didn’t eat rocks, they ate carbon-based lifeforms. Those things died. Imagine that Adam and Eve lived billions of years before they ate the apple and you would see evolution in the other living things of Eden. Also, there is no real difference between macroevolution and microevolution. Scientists don’t use terms because it’s a distinction without distinction.
There’s a cool video of clocks evolving randomly in a simulation here.
nick: “This would be classified as a possum, but it can glide. Is it a transitional form?”
No. It’s a possum that can glide. We have squirrels that can, too. To be a transitional creature, it would have to be between two types of animals, such as a reptile with feathers, for example.
As I pointed out above, nothing that exists will ever be recognized as “transitional” by creationists: the very fact of its existence makes it “just another animal”. Only fantasy-creatures can be “transitional”. If you found a reptile with feathers, that wouldn’t be transitional, it be “a reptile with feathers”.
In fact, every creature is transitional.
Peter: “As I pointed out above, nothing that exists will ever be recognized as “transitional” by creationists: the very fact of its existence makes it “just another animal”.
Creationists did not define what a transitional animal would be; evolutionists defined it, and they have been searching for them from the day Darwin published his book because Darwin predicted them and based the validity of his theory on them. Your ignorance of the theory you defend you stubbornly is quite amazing!
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.