One of our Texas biology instructors, Steve Bratteng in Austin, wrote for the Austin American-Statesman about the reality of evolution-based medicine: It works.
If you are unaffected by one of these maladies, you’re very lucky. If you are affected by one of these maladies, thank Darwin that evolution helps treat these problems, or at least helps understand what’s going on.
Steve presented this list of 13 questions to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003, to several grumbles. The creationists at the Discovery Institute couldn’t answer them, either.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Actually, looking at that wiki quote closer, that doesn’t even match up – it would appear to be trying to explain distribution, not change.
LikeLike
Hannah, I’ve been trying to dig up some info on when the idea of “kinds” as little family bushes first originated, ’cause I realized I really wasn’t certain, and didn’t want to mislead (it’s really kinda inaccurate to say the hebrew meant something like “a genus or family, perhaps order” – these ideas as such didn’t quite exist then; reading Genesis as a science textbook is a silly idea.)
So far (embarassingly enough), the best I can do is (sigh) the wikipedia article on Noah’s Ark, which notes:
“Biblical scholars of the time such as Justus Lipsius (1547–1606) and Athanasius Kircher (c.1601–80) were also beginning to subject the Ark story to rigorous scrutiny as they attempted to harmonise the Biblical account with natural historical knowledge. The resulting hypotheses were an important impetus to the study of the geographical distribution of plants and animals, and indirectly spurred the emergence of biogeography in the 18th century. Natural historians began to draw connections between climates and the animals and plants adapted to them. One influential theory held that the biblical Ararat was striped with varying climatic zones, and as climate changed, the associated animals moved as well, eventually spreading to repopulate the globe. There was also the problem of an ever-expanding number of known species: for Kircher and earlier natural historians, there was little problem finding room for all known animal species in the Ark, but by the time John Ray (1627–1705) was working, just several decades after Kircher, their number had increased dramatically. Incorporating the full range of animal diversity into the Ark story was becoming increasingly difficult, and by 1700 few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah’s Ark narrative.”
So, 16th – 17th centuryish, perhaps – not merely the 20thC, as I was wondering. Makes sense. Don’t know what happened in between, but as John Wilkins of Evolving Thoughts writes, in a post on “What Makes Special Creation Special:
“In fact even special creationism has changed dramatically, for reasons similar to those who tried to shoehorn all living things on the Ark: species are just too finegrained. The original “special creationists” of the fundamentalist movement in America, beginning with the Seventh Day Adventists of the 1910s, tried to make species equivalent to the “kinds” of Genesis, but very quickly began to expand the scope of “kind” to genus, or even family level. The modern creationists, whose ideas date from Morris and Whitcomb in the 1960s, now argue that massive amounts of species-level evolution had to occur after the Ark, to accommodate the incredible number of species now described. The goalposts move so quickly that one needs a high speed camera to capture them. “
LikeLike
“The burden of proof is heavier on you, you know. Why? Answer: Creationism (belief that God created a certain number of ‘kinds’ that branched out–e.g. typical dog –> all the species of dog we have today; etc.) came before evolutionism (which likely started around the time of the Greek philosophers–naturalism at its core).”
Hannah, I’m not following your logic here. The burden of proof is heavier on modern science because creationism is the older idea? That doesn’t really make sense. The idea that storms and illness were caused by gods or spirits or etc. (which is arguably a rather simplistic way to describe such beliefs) predate modern meterology and germ theory, but, that’s not generally taken as a strike against the latter two – nor , incidentally, are people up in arms about how the tv weatherman or family doctor is against God.
I’d also have to question some of these assertions. One can trace vague ideas about evolution back to the classical philosophers (as with atomic theory), but, say, Empedocles‘ rather bizarre ideas about assorted animal and human body parts coming together in random combinations (and only the best surviving) has only the most superficial resemblence to Darwin’s work on natural selection, let alone 21st century modern evolutionary biology. This is an idea being pushed by the more educated and philosphically-inclined creationists – mostly IDers – that evolution (and ultimately all of modern science) is just some big bad ideology. Boo! Hiss! Bah!
Also, the idea that traditional Judeo-Christian creationism had this modern idea of kinds – well, I’m no expert, but it seems at best pretty questionable. (Indeed, it’s been argued that the whole idea of crude literalism and reading Genesis as a science textbook is largely the result of religion colliding with modern ways of thinking, and frantically trying to ape science). The early 20thC creationists were firmly against even small-scale change, insisting on the fixity of created species. Indeed, the first major creationist to accept ‘microevolution’ was absolutely blasted by his peers, if I understand correctly, and it appears to only have become widespread among them after denying it would just be too laughably absurd.
This whole thing about kinds and the ‘orchard’ model of creation really does seem to be a 20th C development – see for example wikipedia’s article on the pseudoscience of Bariminology, which notes that the term “baramin” itself appears to only have been coined in 1947 (though out of two real Hebrew words). Ironically, this sort of neutered evolution has become very, very useful for young earth creationists, both to explain how all the animals could fit on the Ark (you see, Noah only had to take two (or seven) of each kind), and so their position doesn’t seem completely and blazingly untenable.
“Not so fast. You should know as well as I that Paley wasn’t the person who originated creationism. ”
Indeed. He’s more like the most eloquent spokesman of Intelligent Design creationism.
“ That honor belongs, again, to the Greek philosophers, from whom came other ideas like the “ladder of perfection,” which (coincidence or not) resembles the geologic column. ”
I’m not familiar with the term “ladder of perfection,” but just from searching online, it refers to a spiritual work, The Scala Perfectionis, or Ladder of Perfection by the 14th century Christian mystic Walter Hilton? Are you referring to the idea of theGreat Chain of Being (scala naturae)? Again, to see any close and meaningful resemblence to the geologic column would seem to take a lot of influence from folks pushing the whole ‘modern science is just a wicked ideology’ silliness. And they need some way to distract people from wondering why the fossil record doesn’t match what one would expect to see if ‘kind’-based young earth creationism was correct (ie, simultaneous appearance of kinds – ie, the earliest fossils would be of basic dogs, cats, snakes, elephants, whales, monkeys, birds, bears, trees, grasses, lobsters, fish, etc. – followed by minor diversification. Nor does it explain why genetics doesn’t show lots of disconnected family trees, but one great big one.
There are all sorts of resources out there if you’re interested in finding out the best answers modern science – physics, geology, evolutionary biology, genetics, paleontology, etc. – has so far put forward about such matters. Seriously. I could suggest a few, if you’d like?
LikeLike
“Limits: And God created each according to its kind ”
(Leviticus 11:19) – “These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.”
In other words, the biblical limit is that bats and birds had a common ancestor(or possibly one turned into the other). This is pretty hardcore evolution if you ask me.
LikeLike
“I find it interesting that you try to move the definition of creationism closer to evolution.”
Not so fast. You should know as well as I that Paley wasn’t the person who originated creationism. Also, you do your side (from what I read, it seems to be some variant of theistic evolution. True?) a disservice–creationists didn’t invent the notion of immutability of species. That honor belongs, again, to the Greek philosophers, from whom came other ideas like the “ladder of perfection,” which (coincidence or not) resembles the geologic column. Don’t confuse Greek with God.
LikeLike
Oh, and the DNA evidence is from living creatures. We’re looking at DNA that records quite accurately the history of the species and its ancestors. When we see a morphological relationship in fossils and that relationship is confirmed with DNA studies, we have two radically different kinds of science coming up with the same answer. That’s powerful corroboration.
LikeLike
But creationism doesn’t include the idea that dogs branched out. That’s the whole point. Paley’s proposal was that species are not variable at all, but fixed, and fixed around narrow confines. Creationism says the scrub jay and the stellar jay can’t interbreed. Creationism says that domesticated dogs can’t interbreed with wild dogs, or shouldn’t be able to.
That’s why science so readily accepted the animal breeding part of Darwin’s essays. He clearly understood more about animal husbandry and what could and could not interbreed than did the creationist philosophers in the church.
You claim there are limits, but there is no evidence known of any limit to variability in species. And, incidentally, the Bible doesn’t say that ‘God created each according to its kind.’ Instead, it says the Earth does that, similar to Genesis 1.24: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”
“After his kind” implies no cloning, but variation. Genesis is closer to evolution than to creationism’s fixed species ideas, in reality, in that regard.
I find it interesting that you try to move the definition of creationism closer to evolution. I think that deep down all creationists see the silliness of creationism, and the value and power of evolution.
LikeLike
The burden of proof is heavier on you, you know. Why? Answer: Creationism (belief that God created a certain number of ‘kinds’ that branched out–e.g. typical dog –> all the species of dog we have today; etc.) came before evolutionism (which likely started around the time of the Greek philosophers–naturalism at its core).
Limits: And God created each according to its kind (Hebrew word means something around a genus or family, perhaps order). How do we know the hypothetical fossil progression matches the hypothetical DNA progression if those fossils have been petrified, leaving virtually no genome?
LikeLike
What’s the difference? What are the limits? Have they ever been demonstrated?
LikeLike
Again, you ignore that there is, in fact, a clear difference between macro- and micro-evolution. You think the same way as Darwin did, ignoring the limits of a given genome: ‘If an organism can change a little over a short time, then why shouldn’t it be able to change a lot over a long time?’ My questions about this have been consistently answered unsatisfactorily.
LikeLike
Does anyone know what this flap is about? Or is this another chunk of evidence that Ron Paul is a nut magnet?
Can you imagine, quoting Utah Phillips in support of Ron Paul? Just when you thought you’d seen everything . . .
LikeLike
You support an organization which excluded Ron Paul from speaking. This in itself is against science at it’s core.
Science is the search for truth. All science must include all circumstance. No ommission or fact or possible fact.
If by your own action you create an outcome then your science is flawed.
You know this!!!!!
So don’t complain. You brought it on yourself. Let Dr. and I repeat DOCTOR Ron Paul speak. You may not agree with him, but science seeks truth and required all the facts to make a decision. Otherwise you live in belief and religion and not fact.
Look to your own for the problem and see your error of observation. You call yourself a scientist? hmmmmmmmmm
“..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority to set brush fires in people’s minds.”
— Samuel Adams
“With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” — Abraham Lincoln
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” — George Orwell
“The state can’t give you free speech, and the state can’t take it away. You’re born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free…”
— Utah Phillips
quixotic quest
LikeLike
[…] Richard Fillmore’s Bathtub: here is a link to questions which can be answered using evolutionary principles whose answers make […]
LikeLike