|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: Julian Huxley’s Confession
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 30. October 2005 15:34
Julian Huxley’s Confession
by John A. Davison
Abstract: The history of any science often reveals aspects of that science that have escaped attention in the intervening years. As someone so wisely put it - ”The one thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history.” I present, in this brief essay, one particularly revealing demonstration of that phenomenon, one that is especially significant to the current status of the Darwinian hypothesis.
To read the entire paper, click here.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. November 2005 14:38
Since there has been no reaction to this essay, may I then assume that all are in agreement with Huxley and Broom and others, including myself, that creative evolution is indeed a phenomenon of the past? Are there no Darwinians within cybershot who might take exception? I find that hard to believe.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 04. November 2005 22:32
John, A very interesting paper if I may say so - thanks for this interesting historical information. The ideas of Robert Broom are particularly interesting.
Julian Huxley:
quote:
Evolution is thus seen as a series of blind alleys
I wonder why Huxley used that "thus". What was his line of argument that motivated this statement and paragraph? Was it just his correpsondence with Broom or was it that he saw it supporting his overal selectionist hypothesis? The word "blind" seems to suggest his support for random mutations as being the causal agent rather than a "Plan". Could he just be saying that adaption has already taken place - it has done its job and thus the process stops?
Alternatively, in your opinion is Huxley just being a good scientist - and in so doing making reference to those of different viewpoints (and data that doesn't quite fit the Darwinian hypothesis as in the way expected)- and even suggesting that he may be sufficiently open to some aspects of these views/data?
-Chris
[ 04. November 2005, 22:33: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 05. November 2005 11:01
I am confident that Julian Huxley was impeccably honest as was his illustrious grandfather. His statements speak for themselves. Broom had convinced him that evolution was finished. It is as simple as that. The mystery his how he could have said what he did and remain a Darwinian of any sort. The Darwinians conveniently ignore their critics even when it is one of their own like Julian Huxley and Theodosius Dobzhansky. My own feeling is that both Huxley's played the evolutionary card very carefully and both were plenty critical of the Darwinian scheme. There were far more critics of Darwinism in Darwin's own day than there are now. Their numbers have steadily declined until very recently when Intelligent Design has become all the rage. I have always regarded ID as a given, without which nothing in either ontogeny or phylogeny can ever make sense. I am perplexed by why Dembski and the other IDists feel compelled to try to prove ID. It is like trying to prove pregnancy. Maybe my perspective could explain why Dembski has banned me from Uncommon Descent. That is fine with me as I sure wouldn't want to spoil his fun.
Referring to ontogeny and phylogeny:
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
ID should never have been offered up as a subject for debate and I have repeated that view many times. When Schindewolf published his "Basic Questions in Paleontology" in 1950, it was perfectly acceptable to say as he did such things as, when comparing the skulls of marsupial and placental saber-toothed cats:
"The similarities of form are present even in such details as the structure of the flange on the lower jaw, DESIGNED TO GUIDE AND PROTECT THE UPPER CANINES."
page 261 in the 1993 English translation. (my emphasis). Nowadays, if someone said such a thing all hell would break loose. I blame the IDists partly. They are the ones that introduced the subject for debate. It was a strategic error.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 09. November 2005 09:49
quote:
My own feeling is that both Huxley's played the evolutionary card very carefully and both were plenty critical of the Darwinian scheme.
John, if this were true why was Thomas Huxley known as "Darwin's Bulldog". Why did Julian Huxley at the centenial portray Darwinism as a kind of new worldview on which all phenomenon could be explained. Were they not religiously commited to defending and propogating Darwinian theory?
Julian Huxley wrote:
quote:
even the ants and bees have made no advance since the Oligocene. For the birds the Miocene marked the end. For the mammals the Pliocene.
Your reply is:
quote:
The mystery his how he could have said what he did and remain a Darwinian of any sort.
I would think it far more likely that this is because he honestly did believe that the evidence really did support a "blind" Darwinian process. - i.e. that adaptation had done its job and there was no need for further adaptation.
The serious problem we are dealing with here seems to be that Huxley really did see neo-Darwinian theory as giving a sufficient explanation for the evidence/data Neo-Darwinian theory (as you say he was impeccably honest), while you and scientists of the caliber of Berg and Grasse, looking at the same evidence/data see the PEH. One wonders how this can be? If such disagreements between scientists were uncommon one might be relieved, but such unfortunately are commonplace. For example in cosmology there was the controversy between the Big Bang Theory and the Steady State theory from about 1930 to 1965.
quote:
I am perplexed by why Dembski and the other IDists feel compelled to try to prove ID. It is like trying to prove pregnancy.
We are hitting on a matter of importance here. The basic problem with evolutionary biology is that it is all words. The neo-Darwinists can come up with a plausible "just-so" story of how it all happened. [When you read some of Richard Dawkins's books you are certainly left with the idea that every thing is not just plausible but highly plausible] Because the neo-Darwinian mechanism sounds so plausible folk buy into it. Likewise I could argue that your arguments in favor of the PEH provide just another "just-so" story (don't worry I don't believe this). The basic problem is the "metaphysical" spectacles through which we see the data - which are so conditioned by the way we have been taught - especially if the manner of teaching is uncritical.
If we are just left with word arguments we can even as honest scientists make any hypothesis seem feasible to ourselves and then to others. In this sense I am a firm supporter of people like Dr. Dembski who attempt to theorize and make maathematical inferences (not proofs!) to different hypotheses. Note that the thing that finally nailed the Big Bang theory as being of very high liklihood, was not just the discovery of the Background Microwave Radiation, but the fact that the temperature of this radiation had been calculated using known physics theory - and the observed temperature was not far away from that which was observed. Theories eventually have to be written in mathematical form if they are going to fully testable.
Please dont get me wrong - I think the logical arguments you use to infer the PEH are strong - such as the "expression of some preferred blueprints" in convergent evolution, and the arguments based on chromosomal re-arrangements. Its just that any additional information theoretic tools/maths that could also be employed would add to these logical arguments that you and others have provided. It is surely important that IDists do engage in this sort of activity so that false hypotheses may be definitively (and unquestionably) deleted, and thus science be allowed to progress. As a physicist by training I am most certainly alarmed at what contemporary biologists seem to be getting away with - and I believe in the end it is a combination of solid logic and maths that will stop the "just so" stories. ID theory may not be right, but it sure is necessary to get science back on track.
-Chris
[ 09. November 2005, 10:53: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. November 2005 12:03
Thanks Chris
I know exactly what you are saying. The simple truth is that when one deals with evolutionary matters one comes up against things which are fundamental to the human condition. Some are born with the unshakable notion that there is now and never was a God. That is no longer a matter of conjecture as it has been firmly established through the studies on separated identical twins. Godlessness is highly correlated with poliical liberalism as well. Some others have been fortunate enough not to have that congenital condition. For years I was convinced that Richard Dawkins was not sincere. I am now convinced that not only is he sincere but rabidly so in a manner which can only be characterized as having a basis in his genetic makeup. Gould and Mayr had the malady in a less virulent form but were intellectually basically hamstrung nevertheless.
I am afraid I must join with Einstein in seriously questioning the notion of free will. One thing has become increasingly evident. In the battle between Nature and Nurture, Nature is winning hands down. For an objective appraisal of the problem I recommend William Wright's book "Born That Way." He has brilliantly summarized the history of this issue and, as far as I can tell, little has added much to his observations since its publication. Identical twins reared separately are more similar to one another than when reared together since they do not have to establish their differences and accordingly faithfully follow the dictates of their genomic state. It is mindboggling in its significance. I think I understand why the intellectual community tends to ignore it. It represents the antithesis of Darwinism, being highly deterministic and, if I may use the term, "prescribed."
As for Thomas Henry Huxley, it was he who said "Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed." That incidentally is the only frontispiece to Leo Berg's Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law. The elder Huxley was never a convinced Darwinian and, as is so obvious, neither was his grandson, honest intellectuals both. Words have meaning which is why I insist on verbatim references from my sources and always have. The Darwinists continue to pretend that we many critics do not and never did exist for one reason only. That is a can of worms they choose not to open because, if it were to be opened, Darwinism would die in a heartbeat. We simply MUST NOT and WILL NOT exist. It is as simple as that. Godless, pointless, aimless Darwinism is dying anyway so what I or anyone else thinks about it is of little consequence.
As for the science of evolution, everything now being revealed from chromosome structure and function and molecular biology favors the PEH and none of it will ever be reconciled with a dogma based on chance.
The neglect on the part of the evolutionary establishemnt to recognize their many critics, even one of their own, has been calculated, deliberate and shameful. To paraphrase a well know political liberal:
"It has been a vast left-wing conspiracy."
There are sins of omission as well as commision.
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
Thanks for keeping the thread alive. Please feel free also to participate at my new blog:
prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 09. November 2005 19:53
John, What you are saying about the Huxley's is most amazing and perhaps you are straightening out some history. It is a genuine relief for me to know that Thomas Huxley believed and said:
quote:
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
So could you explain why he has this image of being such a defender or the Darwinian theory - to the extent that history has labelled him "Darwins bulldog"?
I have this interesting quote from Thomas Huxley taken from the book "Dawkin's God" by Alistair McGrath:
quote:
Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word "Agnostic" to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatize with utmost confidence. --- Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has not scientific grounds for professing to know or believe . . . Consequently Agnosticism puts aside only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology
This quote certainly is in line with your quote. One is left feeling that Huxley was a dogmatic Agnostic as regards the scientific method. Was his attack on the Church (i.e. the Bishop Wilberforce incidenct) and his strong defence of Darwinian theory more a plea for freedom of hypothesis making in science and religion? I am interested in your understanding and views. If Thomas was alive today do you think then he would be pro voicing of the ID hypotheses and the PEH?
Grandson Julian is quoted as saying in his “Darwinian Centenial” address in 1959. quote:
“Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat. “
This seems to be departing from the true agnosticism of his grandfather? But I dont think he was propounding atheism here - only his sincere belief in the Darwinian paradigm.
-Chris
[ 09. November 2005, 20:14: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. November 2005 07:08
Chris
Thomas Henry Huxley defended Darwinism in the famous debate with Bishop Wilberforce. I am sure he would have defended anyone who had challenged what was at the time a reasonable hypothesis. He was a larger than life figure in Victorian England and I am sure he enjoyed the spotlight. Nevertheless, he was never a convinced Darwinian and neither was his grandson Julian as I hope my essay has demonstrated. Both were great skeptics and great intellects too. I also think both were careful to protect their own images by not upsetting what they regarded as the more reasonable of two opposing positions. It is has been the Darwinian zealots who have kept their own skeletons in the closet right along with the conclusions of my many other sources. Another good example is Theodosius Dobzhansky who set out to transform Drosophila through artificial selection. He failed and said so. You don't hear the Darwinists heralding that failure do you? Of course not. They have studiously avoided any mention of anything that might cast serious doubt on their convictions and convictions they most certainly are. We many critics are simply non-existent. I make no bones about my own position in this matter. It has been largely to expose the establishment for their tactics, tactics they continue to practice. It really is scandalous to say the least. Soren Lovtrup, a developmental biologist, called Darwinism a deceit. I call it a hoax, perpetrated and perpetuated by generation after generation of genetically predisposed liberal ideologues who are helpless victims of their "prescribed" fate. It is really just one more demonstration of the profound wisdom and insight of Albert Einstein:
"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their THINKING, FEELING,and ACTING ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion." (my emphasis)
I am sure some may grow tired of my appeal to the authority of one of the greatest minds of all time. It is one of my weaknesses. I really don't know what else to say except that I enjoy immensely being a part of an intellectual revolution in progress. It is quite exhilarating.
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar wilde
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 10. November 2005 14:49
John,
To be causally bound is not the same as to be causally determined. It also does not imply the absence of freedom.
No one in their right mind thinks that human being are NOT causally bound. Surely we are.
It takes further argument to go from causal boundedness to causal determination. They are not the same position.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. November 2005 15:45
Micah
You are probably right. I am a lousy philosopher which is probably why I can't see the difference between being bound and being determined. They both connote a kind of inevitability to me. In any event it has little to do with a prescribed organic evolution which is my position. I still find it very difficult to understand how the Darwinians can adhere to an hypothesis so lacking in any recognition of that which seems so obvious to some of us, namely design. I know of virtually no designs that did not require an intelligence. The problem arose with the modifying word intelligent which conjures up all sorts of images of a guiding force or an intervening God.
I agree with Grasse:
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Evolution of Living Organisms. page 166 (his emphasis)
and, commentating on the Darwinian camp:
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but is secretly worshipped. We believe that there is no reason for being forced to choose between "either randomness or the supernatural," a choice into which the advocates of randomness strive vainly to back their opponents.It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living things; to determine those laws is the aim and goal of science, which should here have the final say."
"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts,"
ibid, page107
I agree wwith all this except I am not at all certain that life was created only once. That question is the subject of a paper I am preparing.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. November 2005 09:58
Since things here seem to have slowed down, let me invite those who are interested to visit my blog,
prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
where I am presenting some new ideas which might prove interesting to those, like myself, skeptical of Darwinian dogma.
IP: Logged
|
|
Albert de Roos
Member
Member # 1823
|
posted 25. November 2005 17:05
John,
From an engineering perspective, a slowdown or complete stop of evolution would also be the ultimate outcome. As a system get complexer, there will be more and more dependencies. In the end, every time you tinker with one part, it will create negative effects in another. It's a well-known phenomenon in software building, systems get so complex that they can't be changed.
I think that many ancient animals that haven't evolved in a very long time, stay the way they are because they cannot change anymore.
For me, it's a valid scientific point you make.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. November 2005 16:05
Thank you Albert. That is a very interesting idea. I hadn't thought about that. I have always just examined the experimental failure of the sexual mode to support speciation even in the hands of such expert selectionists as Theodosius Dobzhansky and Luther Burbank. I am sure it never crossed Burbank's mind that he might create a new species. While it occurred to Dobzhansky, he admitted defeat much to his credit.
Apparently,
"A rose is a rose is a rose."
Gertrude Stein
Thanks for posting.
IP: Logged
|
|
BlastfromthePast
Member
Member # 1834
|
posted 05. December 2005 18:18
Professor: Late in his life, didn't Thomas Huxley lament that the species barrier had not been crossed by breeders. I believe there's a quote of his about that that I ran across some time ago, but just can't seem to remember where. I thought the comment rather poignant.
Maybe you know whereof I speak?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 05. December 2005 18:25
He may have. I just don't know but would be very interested if he had. I always figure if Luther Burbank couldn't do it nobody could. I don't think it even crossed his mind. Thanks for posting.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic