Evidence for Evolution

[ohio jones]

I think the entire field of creation science from the young earth creationists like Ken Miller (who have no scientific basis whatsoever), to the more sophisticated intelligent design advocates like Behe is rather pointless. Because I don't think you will ever be able to use science to detect God or irrefutable signs of his handiwork. The best we can do is use science to understand the natural world that we inhabit and then use faith to understand that God plays some larger part.

There are dozens of Ken Millers; which one specifically are you referring to? I doubt you know any of them that I know personally. The top hits on Google are for an anti-creationist, Kenneth R. Miller.

[Ken]

I think the entire field of creation science from the young earth creationists like Ken Miller (who have no scientific basis whatsoever), to the more sophisticated intelligent design advocates like Behe is rather pointless. Because I don't think you will ever be able to use science to detect God or irrefutable signs of his handiwork. The best we can do is use science to understand the natural world that we inhabit and then use faith to understand that God plays some larger part.

There are dozens of Ken Millers; which one specifically are you referring to? I doubt you know any of them that I know personally. The top hits on Google are for an anti-creationist, Kenneth R. Miller.

Sorry, got my Kens mixed up. I was thinking of Ken Ham who has built a whole empire around "creation science" And Kent Hovid who has done the same.

[Falco Knotwise]

I also don't dive into things like the mechanical model of the universe or any such thing. Which is not at all the focus of modern evolutionary biology And really falls into the category of philosophy rather than science. It is philosophy because it is a question that can't actually be answered by science. At least not science within our grasp.

Everywhere natural selection is called the “mechanics” of evolution. Bergson was just saying that mechanics was perhaps the wrong model to use for biology. His point is there is more to the story of evolution than can be told with only a “mechanical” model. He doesn’t say it is wrong necessarily, only that perhaps it needs to be supplemented.

If you say so.

I've never actually heard natural selection referred to the mechanics of evolution.

Textbooks might list natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow as the primary mechanisms of evolution. Just like cell biologists might refer to active transport, diffusion, and osmosis as the primary mechanisms that cells use to maintain homeostasis.

But listing different factors as mechanisms of evolution seems different to me from saying that evolution follows a "mechanical model" whatever that means.

First line of Wikipedia on natural selection —

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

The insistence that it be something “mechanical” was very explicit in the early days. It was a time when every new science had to be modeled on the mechanics of physics or it wouldn’t be considered a credible one.

Following Bergson the debate of biologists was between the “mechanics” and the “anti mechanics.” Those who espoused Bergson’s principles did so because they wanted the science of biology to be independent of physics.

The video is pretty interesting, and goes through that history. The woman who is teaching did her doctoral thesis on this. It’s really pretty good.

[Ken]

Everywhere natural selection is called the “mechanics” of evolution. Bergson was just saying that mechanics was perhaps the wrong model to use for biology. His point is there is more to the story of evolution than can be told with only a “mechanical” model. He doesn’t say it is wrong necessarily, only that perhaps it needs to be supplemented.

If you say so.

I've never actually heard natural selection referred to the mechanics of evolution.

Textbooks might list natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow as the primary mechanisms of evolution. Just like cell biologists might refer to active transport, diffusion, and osmosis as the primary mechanisms that cells use to maintain homeostasis.

But listing different factors as mechanisms of evolution seems different to me from saying that evolution follows a "mechanical model" whatever that means.

First line of Wikipedia on natural selection —

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

The insistence that it be something “mechanical” was very explicit in the early days. It was a time when every new science was had to be modeled on the mechanics of physics or it wouldn’t be considered a credible one.

Following Bergson the debate was between the mechanics and the anti mechanics. Those who espoused Bergson’s principles did so because they wanted the science of biology to be independent of physics.

The video is pretty interesting, and goes through that history. The woman who is teaching did her doctoral thesis on it. It’s really pretty good.

"Mechanism" and "Mechanics" are two different words with two different meanings.

A "Mechanism" is simply something that performs a function. Like a spark plug in a car or chip in a computer.
The term "Mechanics" in science usually refers to the study of motion as a consequence of various forces.

I've taken graduate level courses on evolutionary biology and honestly this whole debate about Bergson’s principles and "mechanical models" has never come up. Or if it did I wasn't paying attention. These really aren't the sorts of questions you usually cover.

[Falco Knotwise]

If you say so.

I've never actually heard natural selection referred to the mechanics of evolution.

Textbooks might list natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow as the primary mechanisms of evolution. Just like cell biologists might refer to active transport, diffusion, and osmosis as the primary mechanisms that cells use to maintain homeostasis.

But listing different factors as mechanisms of evolution seems different to me from saying that evolution follows a "mechanical model" whatever that means.

First line of Wikipedia on natural selection —

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

The insistence that it be something “mechanical” was very explicit in the early days. It was a time when every new science was had to be modeled on the mechanics of physics or it wouldn’t be considered a credible one.

Following Bergson the debate was between the mechanics and the anti mechanics. Those who espoused Bergson’s principles did so because they wanted the science of biology to be independent of physics.

The video is pretty interesting, and goes through that history. The woman who is teaching did her doctoral thesis on it. It’s really pretty good.

"Mechanism" and "Mechanics" are two different words with two different meanings.

A Mechanism is simply something that performs a function.
Mechanics in a science context usually refers to the study of motion as a consequence of various forces.

Even the language of “mechanism” is borrowed from physics. The point is it was supposed to be a science that could provide predictability like physics — which is what natural selection is still supposed to be able to provide.

Bergson was pointing out that in the animated world intentionality plays a part in change. “Creative evolution” was meant to point out that evolution is not simply a mechanical process. His philosophy includes the evolutionary development of intelligence as well.

I've taken graduate level courses on evolutionary biology and honestly this whole debate about Bergson’s principles and "mechanical models" has never come up. Or if it did I wasn't paying attention. These really aren't the sorts of questions you usually cover.

I don’t doubt you, Ken, but I think some are starting to take a second look at his stuff today.

I just found some of the things he said interesting. Not going to push this further if you’re not interested.

[Ken]

First line of Wikipedia on natural selection —



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

The insistence that it be something “mechanical” was very explicit in the early days. It was a time when every new science was had to be modeled on the mechanics of physics or it wouldn’t be considered a credible one.

Following Bergson the debate was between the mechanics and the anti mechanics. Those who espoused Bergson’s principles did so because they wanted the science of biology to be independent of physics.

The video is pretty interesting, and goes through that history. The woman who is teaching did her doctoral thesis on it. It’s really pretty good.

"Mechanism" and "Mechanics" are two different words with two different meanings.

A Mechanism is simply something that performs a function.
Mechanics in a science context usually refers to the study of motion as a consequence of various forces.

Even the language of “mechanism” is borrowed from physics. The point is it was supposed to be a science that could provide predictability like physics — which is still used as a scientific criteria in evolutionary theory.

Bergson was pointing out that in the animated word intentionality plays a part in change. “Creative evolution” was meant to point out that evolution is not simply a mechanical process. His philosophy includes the evolutionary development of intelligence as well.

So he was a philosopher and not a scientist. And his whole treatise on "creative evolution" is pure philosophy and not based on an actual scientific study? That explains it.

Like I said. I don't think we will ever be able to see anything more than the observable mechanisms of science whether we are talking about evolution, atomic theory, or anything else. That is what science is. The idea that we can discover "creation" or "creativity" or "intent" behind the curtain so to speak is, I think futile and misguided. Or to put it another way, it is the terrain of philosophers not science.

[Falco Knotwise]

"Mechanism" and "Mechanics" are two different words with two different meanings.

A Mechanism is simply something that performs a function.
Mechanics in a science context usually refers to the study of motion as a consequence of various forces.

Even the language of “mechanism” is borrowed from physics. The point is it was supposed to be a science that could provide predictability like physics — which is still used as a scientific criteria in evolutionary theory.

Bergson was pointing out that in the animated word intentionality plays a part in change. “Creative evolution” was meant to point out that evolution is not simply a mechanical process. His philosophy includes the evolutionary development of intelligence as well.

So he was a philosopher and not a scientist. And his whole treatise on "creative evolution" is pure philosophy and not based on an actual scientific study? That explains it.

Like I said. I don't think we will ever be able to see anything more than the observable mechanisms of science whether we are talking about evolution, atomic theory, or anything else. That is what science is. The idea that we can discover "creation" or "creativity" or "intent" behind the curtain so to speak is, I think futile and misguided. Or to put it another way, it is the terrain of philosophers not science.

No, I don’t think he was talking about an “intent” behind the curtain.

You know why giraffes have such a long neck? Cause they kept stretching their necks to reach the top leaves. Intent.

You know why you can’t see elephants hiding in trees?

Because they’re so good at it.

[Ken]

Even the language of “mechanism” is borrowed from physics. The point is it was supposed to be a science that could provide predictability like physics — which is still used as a scientific criteria in evolutionary theory.

Bergson was pointing out that in the animated word intentionality plays a part in change. “Creative evolution” was meant to point out that evolution is not simply a mechanical process. His philosophy includes the evolutionary development of intelligence as well.

So he was a philosopher and not a scientist. And his whole treatise on "creative evolution" is pure philosophy and not based on an actual scientific study? That explains it.

Like I said. I don't think we will ever be able to see anything more than the observable mechanisms of science whether we are talking about evolution, atomic theory, or anything else. That is what science is. The idea that we can discover "creation" or "creativity" or "intent" behind the curtain so to speak is, I think futile and misguided. Or to put it another way, it is the terrain of philosophers not science.

No, I don’t think he was talking about an “intent” behind the curtain, though that’s a common misunderstanding.

You know why giraffes have such a long neck? Cause they kept stretching their necks to reach the top leaves. Intent.

You know why you can’t see elephants hiding in trees?

Because they’re so good at it.

Not intent in the sense of individual organisms are willing change within them.

I was using the term "intent" in the sense of some there being some creator behind the processes (or mechanisms) of the natural world. Whether you want to call it creativity, intent, design, or whatever. Maybe that isn't what Bergson is saying. I don't know. I haven't read him.

But I do think it is a fool's errand to try to uncover metaphysical or epistemological features in the natural world. There might well be "intent", "creativity", or "intelligent design" behind the mechanisms we can observe in the natural world. But we won't find them using science any more than we will find the secrets behind any of Jesus' miracles within the natural sciences. That sort of thing is properly the terrain of philosophy or religious philosophy and not science.

[ohio jones]

I think the entire field of creation science from the young earth creationists like Ken Miller (who have no scientific basis whatsoever), to the more sophisticated intelligent design advocates like Behe is rather pointless. Because I don't think you will ever be able to use science to detect God or irrefutable signs of his handiwork. The best we can do is use science to understand the natural world that we inhabit and then use faith to understand that God plays some larger part.

There are dozens of Ken Millers; which one specifically are you referring to? I doubt you know any of them that I know personally. The top hits on Google are for an anti-creationist, Kenneth R. Miller.

Sorry, got my Kens mixed up. I was thinking of Ken Ham who has built a whole empire around "creation science" And Kent Hovid who has done the same.

Oh, that Ken. You would benefit from the teachings of Ken Ham.

[Falco Knotwise]

So he was a philosopher and not a scientist. And his whole treatise on "creative evolution" is pure philosophy and not based on an actual scientific study? That explains it.

Like I said. I don't think we will ever be able to see anything more than the observable mechanisms of science whether we are talking about evolution, atomic theory, or anything else. That is what science is. The idea that we can discover "creation" or "creativity" or "intent" behind the curtain so to speak is, I think futile and misguided. Or to put it another way, it is the terrain of philosophers not science.

No, I don’t think he was talking about an “intent” behind the curtain, though that’s a common misunderstanding.

You know why giraffes have such a long neck? Cause they kept stretching their necks to reach the top leaves. Intent.

You know why you can’t see elephants hiding in trees?

Because they’re so good at it.

Not intent in the sense of individual organisms are willing change within them.

I was using the term "intent" in the sense of some there being some creator behind the processes (or mechanisms) of the natural world. Whether you want to call it creativity, intent, design, or whatever. Maybe that isn't what Bergson is saying. I don't know. I haven't read him.

But I do think it is a fool's errand to try to uncover metaphysical or epistemological features in the natural world. There might well be "intent", "creativity", or "intelligent design" behind the mechanisms we can observe in the natural world. But we won't find them using science any more than we will find the secrets behind any of Jesus' miracles within the natural sciences. That sort of thing is properly the terrain of philosophy or religious philosophy and not science.

Well, I don’t think he had anything like “intelligent design” in mind or a metaphysics. Anyway, I just thought somebody might be interested. I thought it was relevant to the topic, at least.

Carry on!