« G.E. Lessing 'blogs' against racism, 1779 | Main | The meme of the 41.5 »
06 December 2005
From the Antichristian-English Dictionary
This may prove helpful to those of you who have trouble with their language:
Persecution: a professor of religious studies characterising 'intelligent design' creationism as mythology rather than science and, in an email to a private listserv, saying something mildly rude about fundamentalists.
Witnessing for Christ: beating the professor in question to the point of hospitalisation.
More details at Pharyngula.
I should note for those confused by this post's title that, no, there is no hyphen missing. The word refers not to those who are hostile to followers of Jesus but to those who (regardless of whom they claim to serve) follow something else. As I noted elsewhere recently, there comes a point when, with the best will in the world, one can only say אתם לא עמי.
There's a lot of talk these days about the Narnia film, not least at Kevin Drum's and PZ Myers's. The Narnia book people dislike most, it seems, is The Last Battle. And I can understand that. But there's one bit of that book that I think deserves closer attention, and it runs counter to what most people are criticising. At the end of the book, the characters find themselves in a thinly-veiled heaven. One person who is very surprised to find himself there is a young Calormene soldier. (In the Narnia books, Calormen is a decadent, cod-Ottoman empire to the south of Narnia.) In confusion, the soldier asks the lion Aslan (who, if you know nothing of these books, is a thinly-veiled Jesus) how it can be that he finds himself in Aslan's realm when, throughout his life, he sought earnestly to serve Aslan's enemy, the Calormene demon-god Tash. Aslan explains that he and Tash are so irreconcilably opposed that Tash scorns the virtue, courage, mercy, justice etc. with which the soldier sought to serve him, whilst Aslan accounts these things as service done him. Nonbelievers who think Christianity is all about thinking that people who believe differently are going to burn in hell forever would do well to consider what this Christian writer was trying to say. Even more importantly, though, Aslan's remarks to the Calormene have a corollary; a rather unsettling corollary for all too many fundamentalists; a corollary they would do well to consider.
Posted by Mrs Tilton at 01:59 PM | Permalink
Comments
Nonbelievers who think Christianity is all about thinking that people who believe differently are going to burn in hell forever would do well to consider what this Christian writer was trying to say.
Ah, but Lewis was hardly a central figure of any Christian denomination. The mainstream, articulated thought is still that Gandhi's in hell and Charles Manson won't be, or wouldn't be if he had chose the right denomination.
I've Wilfully ignored the allegorical aspects of the Narnia books for years, which is legitmate, I think. I'd hate to take a dislike to them based on my personal agnosticism; and the World War II parallels that people keep drawing with The Lord of the Rings, which Tolkien expressly denied in his lifetime, are so widespread today that studiously ignoring an expressly admitted allegory seems fair turnaround in literary terms :-) .
Posted by: Aidan Kehoe at 6 Dec 2005 17:27:31
Aidan, I really don't think that's true, depending on your definition of "mainstream".
1) If Lewis was not a central figure in Anglicanism, this could only be because he had such remarkable contemporaries -- Eliot and Dorothy Sayers spring to mind. He has a huge following across America, too.
2) Again, I really don't think that most Christians believe that Gandhi's in hell. I'd be very surprised if that's the official RC position. In fact the official position is that while the Church can be certain that some people are in heaven -- that's what canonisation is about -- the fate of the others is, like that of Schroedinger's Cat, known only to God.
Posted by: Andrew Brown at 6 Dec 2005 17:45:05
Anglicanism has a hierarchy; Lewis wasn't any part of it. He was an independent thinker, and he didn't make any claims to be putting forward the position of his church.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church online, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1034.htm
1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616Now, I haven't being paying sufficient attention to Catholic theology recently to say if the reasonable conclusion from that is still drawn, and I don't anticipate that attention from me starting any time soon. But you'll need to cite me a source condemning that intepretation to get me to believe it isn't.
Posted by: Aidan Kehoe at 6 Dec 2005 20:10:18
Naughty, naughty, Mrs. T! When you describe professor Mirecki as being "mildly rude" concerning the ID hypotheses what he actually wrote was, "The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category ‘mythology.’ ” Mirecki said he was “doing my part” to upset “the religious right” and signed his posting “Evil Dr. P.”
Well, at least I can agree with the professor that it was indeed a "slap in the face" which is about all that Mirecki got in return because according to his own words, "I’m mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots,” he said, and after treatment he went home. All very reprehensible, no doubt, but if that is the most that the 'fundies' can come up with when their deeply held religious beliefs are insulted, then I think there is definitely something wrong in Kansas City! They should all be sent to Iran for a course in proper fundamentalism.
As for Mirecki, he's obviously a cheat and a humbug. If he truly opposes the ID hypotheses, he should refuse to teach it, instead of taking the money and indulging in a travesty of a course in which nods and winks will obviously outnumber any serious instruction. As for his supporters, one of them was quoted as saying, "Academic freedom should assure the freedom of any faculty member to teach what they want to teach.” So if if some-one in the science faculty wanted to teach ID, that would be just fine and dandy, would it?
Why do so-called academics appear to be such total prats!
Posted by: David Duff at 6 Dec 2005 21:23:56
Mr. Duff, you completely miss the point Mirecki makes. As a religious study scholar, he can most certainly analyze the religious content of Intelligent Design...and to deny that this religious content exists is to engage in cheatery and humbuggery themselves. Moreover, opposition to Intelligent Design can most certainly take other tacts than "refusing to teach it"; it is a rather poor worldview that reduces reactions to a proposition to a set of binary actions.
Posted by: gwangung at 7 Dec 2005 03:49:31
Do we even know that he was actully beaten? Could be a hoax.
Posted by: Joe at 7 Dec 2005 07:48:03
I may well miss the point but'Gwangdun' drives right over it. "[T]o deny that this religious content exists is to engage in cheatery and humbuggery themselves." But Mirecki *does* deny it, as he made clear in his e-mail. If Mirecki taught the subject in a neutral manner pointing out the pros and cons then his personal opinion would not matter, but it is obvious from his e-mail that he intended to rubbish the whole thing.
'Joe' may well have a point. We only have Mirecki's word that it had anything to do with his work. From the description it could have just been a road-rage incident started inadvertantly by Mirecki himself. He looks and sounds like a complete dork and if he drives like he behaves, it's possible.
Posted by: David Duff at 7 Dec 2005 09:22:57
Personally, I think Mirecki was drunk or high, and fell on his face. He then made up this rather unconvincing story as a cover.
Mirecki may be delusional and in need of serious psychiatric intervention.
Posted by: Kenneth at 8 Dec 2005 01:06:45
Perhaps we should pray for him!
Posted by: David Duff at 8 Dec 2005 11:07:51
Wow, you never used to be a troll-magnet. And what trolls.
This is a zinger, from someone who refuses to know better : - "If Mirecki taught the subject in a neutral manner pointing out the pros and cons"
I don't get this. How neutral between truth and lies should teachers be?
Posted by: dave heasman at 9 Dec 2005 14:26:44
Dave,
yeah, I know. Ah well; as long as they don't behave themselves too badly, there's no harm in letting the poor dears play. I expect they'll toddle off soon enough.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton at 9 Dec 2005 20:06:33
Aidan, I thought Vatican II took care of all that, but reading the documents
(http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/) it seems more like it sorta skips around
the question of who exactly is going to hell.
It seems pretty happy with the Orthodox, of non-Catholic Christians it says:
"It follows that the separated Churches[23] and Communities as such,
though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no
means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of
salvation."
says nice things about Buddhists and Hindus and talks about how Jews and Muslims
will share in gifts of the Lord (presumably this means getting to hang out with
the old guy after death). But whenever it starts looking like they'll give you a
list of who'll burn and who won't, it starts talking about "the mystery of one
true Church" and stuff like that.
Which means they probably purposely left the question open - probably not to piss
off the more traditional 'kill'em all, God will know his own' types
Posted by: radek at 10 Dec 2005 02:24:51
It's also interesting to note that 'Joe' and 'Kenneth' posted almost identically-worded messages at several other websites, such as http://jgrr.blogspot.com, http://archaeoastronomy.co.uk/, http://expert-opinion.blogspot.com/2005/12/culture-wars-heating-up.html, and http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2005/12/violence_and_in.html.
Joe's "Do we even know that he was actully beaten? Could be a hoax." is duplicated verbatim at at least 5 other sites.
I think we're witnessing a grassroots Rovian swiftboating of Mirecki. Sweet folks, them fundies.
Incidentally, go here for the latest on Mirecki, with photos: http://jgrr.blogspot.com/.
Posted by: arden chatfield at 11 Dec 2005 06:15:59
I have been away and thus only just caught up with this thread and the comment from an old opponent, 'Dave' Heasman. It's a shame he remains as confused as ever, apparently believing that a religious studies teacher, in a religious studies class, would be telling lies if he offered up a supernatural explanation for the evolution of life forms. Apparently, 'Dave' is unaware that statements such as "God exists", or its negative, "God does not exist", cannot be classified as true or false because they are incapable of being tested. Consequently they become statements of faith. Of course, either one of them *might* be a "lie", but as it stands at the moment it appears we will never know. Anyway, it's a comfort to know that 'Dave' has faith!
Now let us turn, whilst trying hard to maintain a straight face, to the obverse of his comment which implies that Darwin's theory is "true". I have remarked elsewhere on the enormous amount of fun to be had at the expense of the Darwinista congregation, led by 'archbishop' Dawkins, in their 'happy-clappy' chanting as they worship their holy book, "The Origin of the Species". As in so many religions, there are several 'splitters', along the lines of the famous Pythonesque, 'Judean People's Liberation Front", so that for an interested observer it is rather like watching a cock-fight. One's amusement is intensified when you realise that their 'God-head', oops, sorry, hero, Charles Darwin, a brilliant and modest man, was himself deeply doubtful concerning aspects of his own *theory* on how life forms evolved. Despite this, the 'Darwinistas' cease their squabbling instantly and turn as one against any heretic who commits the thought-crime of suggesting that the *theory* is not the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. They're believers, you see!
To an agnostic observer such as myself this affords much hilarity. Anyone with a reasonable intelligence and a healthy dose of scepticism, or even common-sense, would recognise that Darwin's theory has more holes in it than my local golf course! It contains some useful insights and probably explains micro-changes *within* a species but as an explanation of the explosion of life forms in a relatively short space of time, it's just not very convincing. More convincing than, say, the ID-ers, but not much more. And now, at long last, the doubts concerning Darwin's theory have mounted to such an extent that it has provoked scientists into attempting to come up with better explanations(1), but don't tell 'Dave', he'll know when he's the only one left in the church when he hears his own voice echoing!
(1) "Chaos and Life: Complexity and Order in Evolution and Thought" by Richard J. Bird.
Posted by: David Duff at 11 Dec 2005 20:05:53
Clarification: Beset as I was by giggles, my syntax got away from me. Of the two statements, "God exists" or "God does not exist", one is true and one is false but, so far, we have no way of knowing which is which.
Posted by: David Duff at 11 Dec 2005 20:11:43
"Of the two statements, "God exists" or "God does not exist", one is true and one is false "
No it isn't.
"the obverse of his comment which implies that Darwin's theory is "true"..."
No it doesn't.
Darwin's theory is false. It has been refined and corrected continuously for over 130 years.
Science isn't like primitive religion, where there's supposed to be a universal revealed truth written down and immutable. It's a process. (As is real religion i.m.o.)
Trolls imagine Darwin to be some sort of prophet, where if you can catch something he didn't get quite right, the whole concept of evolution collapses. That's kind of primitive, and that's not always a good thing.
Posted by: dave heasman at 12 Dec 2005 10:31:22
"It contains some useful insights and probably explains micro-changes *within* a species "
What's a species?
Here's a bit of Wikipedia : -
"Since the advent of the theory of evolution, the conception of species has undergone vast changes in biology, however no consensus on the definition of the word has yet been reached"
That may well be true. Gives a weasel plenty of wiggle-room, doesn't it?
I like lions and tigers. They both used to live wild in Europe, you know, not all that long ago.
They can interbreed, too. Not terribly successfully, and they only do it in captivity, but they do it.
Different species? wiggle wiggle.
Posted by: dave heasman at 12 Dec 2005 11:35:28
Dave,
quite so. 'Darwin's theory is false' is a bit strong, though. I'd have said rather: 'Darwin's theory is true, even though he got a lot of little things and at least one really big thing wrong. That's OK, though, because people have been refining and correcting it continuously for over 130 years. That's what scientists do. Even though Darwin didn't get it all, his ideas remain the foundation of all biology today because they offer as powerful and productive an explanation as anything science has ever come up with.'
BTW, I thought this was rather special:
...apparently believing that a religious studies teacher, in a religious studies class, would be telling lies if he offered up a supernatural explanation for the evolution of life forms.
Well, as the religious studies teacher in question himself thought he'd be telling lies by offering up that explanation, I'm having trouble seeing what is problematic in Dave's belief.
Oh, and the '"Darwinism"-as-religion' shtick is pretty tired. Better obscurantists, please.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton at 12 Dec 2005 13:27:53
I am going to turn serious in a minute, but before I do so, please allow me to have some fun.
'Dave' Heasman faced with the contradictory propositions that "God exists" and "God does not exist", and the corollary that one must be true and the other false, simply replies, "No it isn't", thus confirming his membership of the Harold (the Obscure) Pinter school of philosophy. That great thinker wrote the following:
"There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false. I believe that these assertions still make sense..."
To which one can only sensibly reply, er, yes, or there again, no.
Then our revered hostess wrote "Darwin's theory is true, even though he got a lot of little things and at least one really big thing wrong" which, were I brave enough and stupid enough, I might point out sounded either awfully Irish or awfully feminine or both - but of course, I wouldn't dream of saying such a thing, not out loud anyway!
But enough frivolity. I am concussed to meet two neo-Darwinists prepared to admit what the great man, himself, suspected, that his theory had considerable flaws. If you had received the amount of abuse that I have 'enjoyed' over the years from the 'Darwinistas' whenever I have suggested the same, you would understand my surprise. However, I am very curious as to what you both think are these major flaws.
I would add that the idea that scientific propositions are constantly refined and changed does not seem to apply to physics and chemistry. No-one to my knowledge has 'refined' or 'changed' Newton's laws of motion. If they have, please tell me, I shall never fly again!
As for 'Dave's' point concerning species, I sympathise with his confusion. It is Prof. Dawkins who insists that the whole hierarchy of living things must be placed within specific circles. For example rats and mice would be inside one ring which would fit neatly inside another larger ring labelled 'rodents'. He goes on "The important thing about this sytem of rings within rings is that it is pefectly nested. Never, not on a single solitary occasion, will the rings that we draw intersect." He may be right, but where does that leave poor old Darwin and his theory that everything evolves gradually, in tiny increments? Where are the 'in-betweens'? I don't know, but I'm glad some-one else is puzzled.
Mrs. T. thinks I overdo the religious connotations contained in the attitude of the 'Darwinistas'. I can only say to her with absolute honesty that once upon a time I swallowed Dawkins whole. I, too, was a believer. But gradually, the behavior and the style of the neo-Darwinists in general, and Dawkins in particular, began to smack of dogma; and their hatred, I choose the word with care, for anyone with religious beliefs became offensive to me even though I have no religious convictions at all. It seemed to me that they were more concerned with upholding and insisting on their atheism than they were in testing the tenets of Darwin's theory. I also became suspicious of their claim that Darwin's theory was a 'theory of everything'. I have considerable sympathy with Popper's proposition that no theory is an explanation of 'everything' and also his notion that a theory cannot be 'scientific' if it cannot be tested to see if it can be falsified. This is impossible with Darwinian theory because it predicts nothing. So I am the worst of all sinners, I have fallen from the faith!
Posted by: David Duff at 13 Dec 2005 01:06:40
"'Dave' Heasman faced with the contradictory propositions that "God exists" and "God does not exist", and the corollary that one must be true and the other false, simply replies, "No it isn't", "
My last shot.
Noone, let's take English examples, who met, say, Basil Hume or Michael Ramsay, saintly men whose lives were illuminated by a living God, could simply say that there is no God.
Similarly noone, surely, could straight-facedly and simply say that some indeterminable, undetectable but omnipotent force deliberately created the highly-effective and simple cephalopod visual system and also the highly-ineffective, failure-prone and clunky mammalian eye.
It'd be a joke if there wasn't a whole evidence-based way of looking at the world that is in peril of being destroyed by yahoos. One side of this argument is in bad faith.
The whole point of this monumentally hypocritical right-wing denial of evolution is to tar anyone who believes in a welfare state as being godless atheists who have no moral foundation and thus shouldn't be voted for. There's no other motive.
Posted by: dave heasman at 13 Dec 2005 10:30:33
"Noone [...] who met [...] saintly men whose lives were illuminated by a living God, could simply say that there is no God."
Oh yes they could and indeed, they do!
"Similarly noone, surely, could straight-facedly and simply say that some [supernatural] force deliberately created the [...] cephalopod visual system and also the highly-ineffective, failure-prone [...] mammalian eye."
Oh yes they could, and indeed, they do!
The point I'm trying to make, 'Dave', is that both statements are statements of *faith*. Human psychology being what it is, different people will *believe* in all sorts of things. For example, some people *believe* that 'everyone is equal' (whatever that means!) despite evidence as high as Everest indicating the exact opposite. To complain about it is as useless as complaining about the weather, it's human nature. We both agree, I think, that a rational approach is essential, but we can't ignore these *beliefs* because they have a real effect in the world.
You quote a particularly foolish representation of creationist views, not unreasonably because some of them do say such things, but let me offer you a rather different 'supernatural' explanation for living forms. Let us suppose a 'God' exists who simply set things in motion, a 'prime mover', without any aims or intents beyond starting the ball rolling by creating mass and energy. That is as unprovable as it is unfalsifiable. I don't believe it, personally, but somehow, some way, this whole universe began.
You were obviously getting a bit cross in your last paragraph but you provide me with an example of what I mentioned in my comment above, the tendency of neo-Darwinists to use Darwin's theory as a club with which to beat the Theists. Most people consider me to be 'Right-wing' (I'm not but this is not the place to explain it) and I definitely think that the welfare state is the greatest evil ever inflicted on the British people. However, none of that has any bearing on my doubts concerning Darwin's very honourable hypothesis as to how so many different and complex life forms evolved from a few, very simple beginnings. His explanation is simply not convincing and I would urge you to forget the irritations of the ID-ers and such-like, and take another very hard, close look at the theory itself.
Posted by: David Duff at 13 Dec 2005 13:55:34
"Darwin's theory is true, even though he got a lot of little things and at least one really big thing wrong" which, were I brave enough and stupid enough, I might point out sounded either awfully Irish or awfully feminine or both ... I am concussed to meet two neo-Darwinists prepared to admit what the great man, himself, suspected, that his theory had considerable flaws.
If you concuss so easily, David, you really ought to think about wéaring a cyclist's helmet.
Why are you surprised that a 'neo-Darwinist' (to use your term) thinks that Darwin 'missed a lot of little things and at least one big thing'? If you read pretty much any decent 'neo-Darwinist' book that discusses Darwin's idea and its development to the present age, that is what you will hear. And few of these writers are feminine or Irish (and even fewer are both).
What we need to distinguish between is discussion within and without the context of evolutionary theory. If you talk to evolutionists, you'll find that they have been (as Dave pointed out earlier) correcting and refining Darwin's (by now quite old) theory for many, many years. And even today, there's plenty of controversy within the theory. (An example. Darwin couldn't have known about this, and perhaps you've not heard of it either. But lots of people think that simply huge amounts of evolution are not the result of natural selection. Of course, this sort of evolution isn't very exciting for laypeople to read about, as it by definition produces no phenotypic change; but it's evolution for all that. Anyway, lots of other people aren't fans of that notion. There's a great deal of debate in evolution, actually, about this and all sorts of other things. But no rush to alert the media; that kind of debate is simply what scientists do.)
But, sorry, there's really not controversy about the theory. There are great gaggles of evolutionary theorists who fight each other like stray cats on angel dust over differing ideas about evolution. But as soon as somebody walks into the room and starts talking about the theory, in the broadest sense, being wrong, they will join in staring at that somebody in disdain. And they'd be right. Evolutionary theory simply hasn't any real competition as an explanation for the development of biological diversity. That is, it has no competitors if one insists that the explanation pass scientific muster.
The really big thing Darwin got wrong, BTW, I leave as an exercise to you to figure out. That exercise shouldn't be difficult; there are few 'neo-Darwinist' exponents of evolutionary theory who don't give it prominent mention. I don't think I've ever seen a creationist identify it correctly, though.
As for the rest: can Dawkins be irritating and arrogant? Doubtless he can (though I personally can forgive an awful lot in somebody who writes as well as he does). His devout irreligion doesn't trouble me, though it does others; but what of it? The man who keeps your car in working order might well (let us say) have strongly-held ideas about how Sven ought to manage the England squad, ideas you find wrong and even offensive. But I'm just not subtle enough to see what that has to do with him getting your car's motor in tune.
And as for your not finding evolution by natural selection a convincing argument, well, that's your prerogative. You'll have to pardon me if I don't share your lack of enthusiasm. But what does my opinion matter? By all means, publish your competing ideas. If their explanatory power is greater and more robust than Darwin's, I am confident that in 150 years' time Darwin will have joined Lamarck on the rubbish tip of science and we shall all be talking excitedly about Duffism.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton at 13 Dec 2005 17:46:39
Just quickly before I respond to your comment as a whole, what exactly do *you* mean by 'evolutionary theory'? I assume it is more than what every Irish horse and cattle dealer knew long before Darwin, that you can breed, with modest certainty, particular traits in particular species. What I am curious about is what you think is the mechanism by which new taxa or phyla are introduced into existence. I only ask so that I can respond to the point.
Posted by: David Duff at 13 Dec 2005 22:48:32
David,
I'm afraid I cannot tell you what Irish horse and cattle dealers might have known before Darwin, as I am neither pre-Darwinian nor a horse and cattle dealer. With that proviso, if you want to know what I mean by 'evolutionary theory', what I mean is: evolutionary theory. If it's not clear to you what that means, then it's not clear to me why we're having this discussion.
Your question as to how I think 'new taxa or phyla' come about is hard to answer. But it's hard only for terminological reasons. Your question, you see, is a bit like asking how I think 'new instruments for communication or pencils' come about. But viewed in the broad abstract, what I think happens is this: change accumulates across a population to the point at which one now has not one but two groups, each isolated from the other reproductively. Speciation, in other words. Once you have a formerly united group separated, any further changes in the one group are independent of any changes (or stasis) in the other. Now repeat until done. That is, I don't think macroevolution (with which you seem to have your difficulties) is anything other than microevolution (with which you seem to have no problem at all), writ large. Sorry, but I just don't think your objections very well thought-out, nor very interesting.
Now, there are objections one might have raised, and very interesting ones too (well: relatively interesting ones), on a rigourously taxonomic basis. But even those objections would not have been to evolutionary theory but rather to taxonomic practice. And those objections would hold water in direct relation to the degree one insists that evolutionary theory is accurate and that systematics should seek to mirror phylogeny. If you don't accept evolutionary theory (and Linnaeus didn't, there having been no evolutionary theory in those days to accept), you can use any terminology you like. But if you do, and if on top of that you think systematics only makes sense (or at least, makes most sense) if it communicates evolutionary history, then you will insist on a rather more rigourous taxonomy. But here again what we find is a debate (a very lively debate, I should point out) within the context of evolutionary theory, not about evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton at 14 Dec 2005 02:03:12
There really is no need to get snappy, Mrs. T., I am now utterly inured to the whips and scorn of the 'Darwinistas', amongst whom, I do not count you. Equally, there is no need to patronise. I have lived my entire life in the 'Age of the Expert' and I know my place! In my bumbling, amateurish way (see, I can do humble with the best of them), I thought I had made clear that it was your understanding of the 'mechanics' of evolution that I was interested in. I do not believe in a very old man in the sky leaning down, pointing his finger and intoning, "Let there be a "highly-ineffective, failure-prone and clunky mammalian eye". I am happy to accept that life forms evolved from their predecessors. The debate is about the nature of the engine that drives this process onwards.
This is *my* understanding of Darwin's hypothesis:
1: All life forms reproduce and in the process they pass on heritable characteristics. (He didn't know what they were but we now know they are genes.)
2: These inheritable characteristics are not perfect copies and from time to time small differences will occur.
3: All life forms exist between a 'rock and a hard place'. The 'rock' is the tendency of all living things to expand their populations to slightly in excess of the food supply; and the 'hard place' is the consequent competition for food between conspecifics.
4: Thus, any differences, however minute, which allow one individual to win the competition for food, will allow that individual to live longer and breed more often and consequently pass on that tiny difference to a slightly greater number of off-spring.
5: Eventually, this accumulated and increasingly accentuated difference will lead to those who have it, ceasing to interbreed with those who do not. Thus, a new species has been formed!
It is, in my *humble* opinion, a brilliant hypothesis - but flawed. However, before I drone on, perhaps you would care to put me right if my summary above is incorrect or incomplete.
Posted by: David Duff at 14 Dec 2005 12:51:28
