As I detailed in Part 1 of “Was Darwin Wrong?”, I somehow found the fortitude to attend a lecture on evolution given by Young Earth Creationist Dr. Harrub last weekend.  The first post details his misunderstandings concerning cosmology and Darwin’s The Origin of Species.  The following synopsis of his introductory remarks, of course, reveals even more misunderstanding and ineptitude, although I suppose such a thing should be expected.

Now, perhaps the silliest aspect of the whole lecture was the fact that Dr. Harrub did not directly argue against evolution, but instead chose only a very few excerpts from a popular press article to rebut, as if an article printed in National Geographic constituted all of the evidence for evolution.  In the process, the speaker ignored countless other lines of evidence in favor of evolution and skillfully avoided discussing the countless articles presented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject.  This could be excusable on the grounds that his presentation was intended for an audience of laypeople, if not for the obvious fact that he deliberately chose to address only a popular-press article to try to cast doubt on the authority of those who defend evolution.  He chose, for instance, to call into doubt the credibility of the author of the article, David Quammen, by noting that his degree was in literature rather than science.  Of course, such an argument is laughably inane and thoroughly ironic given the fact that virtually all biologists and scientific organizations overwhelmingly accept evolution.  If Dr. Harrub wants to defend creationism solely on the basis of the education levels of its adherents, then he’s treading a dangerous path, as countless polls of scientists and laypeople overwhelmingly show a correlation between belief in evolution and levels of higher education, as evidenced by this particular graphic from a 2009 Gallup poll.  His argument here is also particularly hilarious in light of the fact that most of his scientific references were from sources that were nearly 30-40 years old.  However, I feel that I must disclose here that I, too, possess a degree with a focus in literature and grammar, which presumably disqualifies me from any comment on the subject in Dr. Harrub’s eyes, though I strangely seem to have a better grasp on the subject of evolution than he.

Dr. Harrub was full of an assortment of false analogies to make his point.  In one case, he compared the process of evolution to throwing dice and expecting the dice to somehow change as a result, exclaiming that chance does not change dice.  Perhaps the average church-going crowd may find this analogy compelling, but even the barest understanding of evolution demolishes the argument, as dice are clearly not analogous to evolution owing to the lack of mechanism for change (dice do not sexually reproduce or mutate) and the lacking selection pressure (Dr. Harrub expects the dice to change through chance alone).  I may as well refute God’s existence by claiming that rolling dice does not lead to the creation ex nihilo of the universe as documented in Genesis if Dr. Harrub finds these kinds of false analogies compelling.

He also argued at length that the provisional, evidence-based nature of the scientific method was somehow problematic.  For example, he remarked that many of the older folks in the audience were probably told that the Earth was 250 million years old, while the current accepted age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years, and he then implied that this extended age of the Earth is not based on any evidence but is merely an ad hoc attempt to give the Earth an age old enough to be compatible with extended periods of evolution, which is simply untrue.  The expanded age of the Earth resulted from more accurate dating techniques and geological theories that came to prominence before Darwin had even developed the theory of evolution.  Once the uniformitarian theory of geological change had been established and rough estimates of dating based on radioactivity had been established, the Earth was consistently dated as older and older.  These dates did not result from biologists trying to prove evolution, but from geologists in the case of the uniformitarian theory and physicists in the case of radiometric dating techniques.  Other than that, it was also untrue that the older folks in the audience were told that the Earth was merely a few hundred million years old, as radiometric dating had been developed in the early 1900s and soon after that the age of the Earth was routinely placed in the billion-year range by scientists.  So unless several 110-year-olds were present in the audience, it is unlikely anyone was told the Earth was only millions of years old in school.  But beyond that, to criticize science for modifying its theories on the basis of new evidence is simply silly.  People tend to naturally value consistency, but as Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.  And to consistently believe something in the face of contrary evidence is indeed quite foolish.  It is unlikely that any creationist would prefer the care of a hospital that consistently believed that smacking someone with a trout would cure cancer over a more modern hospital that continually revised and changed its cancer treatment modalities on the basis of new studies and evidence and technology.  (Although my assumption could be quite wrong given the prominence of complementary and alternative medicine modalities, which is a digression I shall choose to ignore for now.)

Yet another misconception continually emphasized for the audience was the idea that science should be performed “in a laboratory” with “direct observation.”  Of course, this type of caricature of science widely prevails through our culture.  In reality, of course, science need not be performed in a lab and its theories need not be directly observable.  Science is a process of explanation through testing.  Theories are developed to explain certain occurrences or observations, and subsequent observations are accumulated to determine if the theory holds true.  If a forensic scientist is trying to determine whether a person was murdered or committed suicide, for instance, they gather evidence to determine which of the competing theories is best supported, and it does not matter that no one “directly observed” the event.  The evidence for large-scale evolution above the species level is similar in that it rests upon the evidence of homology, fossils, biogeography, and so on rather than direct observation of such events.  So long as a theory is supported by observable evidence and capable of refutation by contrary observations, it is scientific.  Labcoats and direct observation are not requirements.

As can be seen, many errors of fact were present in Dr. Harrub’s talk, and so far I have only covered the introduction.  In the following installments I will explore the meat of his argument (best described as rancid and decaying), which centered on criticism of various hominid fossils and a few arguments mirroring those presented by Jonathan Wells’ book Icons of Evolution.

And as always, be sure to check out Ziztur’s and Flimsy’s reviews of the talk at Atheism Is Freedom, although we tend to hammer on the same points owing to our sharing an omnibrain that we construced by uniting our three individual brains through lots of welding and a generous use of superglue.

This weekend, while most of the people my age were out getting drunk and having sex, I was doing something completely uncharacteristic of my generation.  For even though I too was out getting drunk and having sex, I also attended a lecture given by a Young Earth Creationist on Friday and Saturday night.  I’m still unsure whether the drinking, sex, or the lecture was more depraved, though the lecture has definitely caused the most shameful guilt.  Thankfully, I was seated with like-minded members of the St. Louis Atheist Meetup Group, particularly Ziztur and Flimsy, who blog at Atheism Is Freedom. (Here is Ziztur’s first post on the lecture, and she even has a commenter from the church because she’s crazy enough to hand out business cards for her blog!)

The title of the lecture was based on a National Geographic article of the same name: “Was Darwin Wrong?”  Of course, the first page of the National Geographic article answered that question with a resounding “NO,” complete with supersized font and bold lettering.  The lecture, of course, did not come to so reasonable a conclusion, much to my chagrin.

The speaker was Young Earth Creationist Dr. Brad Harrub.  Surprisingly, he is a real doctor with a PhD in neurobiology from a legitimate university, unlike the countless other creationists who routinely receive their doctoral degrees from university mills and various other unaccredited religious institutions.  For whatever reason, he chooses to sully his academic credentials in biology with not just creationism, but young Earth creationism, which is essentially creationism’s slower, drooling, semi-retarded cousin.  Intelligent Design proponents are willing to give some ground to scientific consensus outside of biology at least, but the Young Earth Creationist movement rejects not only the unifying theories of modern biology but also those of geology, astronomy, physics, and countless other disciplines.

Like Genesis, Dr. Harrub started his lecture in the beginning, addressing the origins of the universe and attempting to discredit the Big Bang theory.  He tried to argue that the Big Bang theory violates the second law of thermodynamics, as the universe becomes ordered from disorder, but this only betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper interpretation and application of the law.  If Dr. Harrub’s interpretation of the second law were correct, for instance, it would also imply that embryonic development is impossible, as the growth of a zygote into an embryo requires no guiding force, and yet the early development of a single-celled zygote into a multicellular embryo can be fully observed to create more and more complexity.  Clearly, Dr. Harrub’s toy conception of thermodynamics that naively maintains that the creation of order from disorder is impossible is wholly wrong given only a cursory examination.  The laws of thermodynamics basically only tell us about heat’s tendency toward equilibrium in closed systems.

Following the digression into Big Bang cosmology, Dr. Harrub finally began to address evolution.  He gave a brief overview of Darwin’s life, explicitly implying that the theory of evolution was the result of Darwin’s personal tragedies, namely the loss of his daughter and his subsequent rejection of God.  Of course, this ramshackle attempt at psychoanalyzing Darwin tells us nothing concerning the truth or falsity of his theory, as ultimately the theory of evolution was accepted on the merits of the evidence in its favor, and not the personal biography of Darwin himself.

Not content to portray Darwin as biased after losing his faith, the lecturer then claimed that the theory of evolution is racist.  The only support ventured for this argument was to call attention to the subtitle of The Origin of Species, which is “Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”  Dr. Harrub argued that the use of the words “Favoured Races” betrays racist undertones of the classic book. Of course, anyone who has ever read The Origin of Species would find this remark quite unfounded. Even a cursory glance at the table of contents would quickly reveal that Darwin did not expound upon human evolution, much less explicitly detail a theory concerning racial characteristics within its pages. In fact, it is quite well-known that Darwin was reluctant to publish his theory of evolution owing to its implications regarding man’s place in the cosmos, and this is specifically why he didn’t publish The Origin of Species until Wallace had almost scooped him; incidentally, this is also why he refrained from mentioning human evolution at all within its pages, preferring instead to focus on birds, beetles, and plants.  So to claim that the subtitle’s use of the phrase ”Favoured Races” refers to a theory of racial classification is irresponsibly disingenuous.  Darwin did not espouse the so-called “Social Darwinism” of the 19th century that sought to justify inequity through piss-poor biology.  The theory of evolution does not tell us how we ought to behave or prescribe value judgments; it is not an ethical theory.  It merely describes reality as it is.  In fact, any sort of hierarchical value-laden model of evolution that seeks to rank organisms from “best” to “worst” or as “more evolved” is purified claptrap.  With a proper understanding of evolution, to argue that a particular race or species is “more evolved” is simply meaningless.  It makes no sense, for instance, to say that a bird is more evolved than a beetle.  Both have evolved to fill a particular ecological niche, and both can reproduce and survive.  Evolution only describes the changes in their allele frequencies over time.

One particular argument I found surprising was Dr. Harrub’s attempt to portray Darwin as endorsing Lamarckian evolution, or the inheritance of acquired characteristics.  In support of this view, he quotes Darwin as saying the following in The Origin of Species:  “I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited.”[1]  At first blush, it does seem as if Darwin is endorsing Lamarckian evolution here.  Dr. Harrub, of course, rightly mocks this as nonsense, noting that should a parent lose a limb before procreating, the offspring will not be born with a missing limb.  Of course, I instantly knew that this quote from Darwin had to be taken completely out of context, as it was so completely out of character with the rest of the book.  And sure enough, Dr. Harrub had merely quote-mined Darwin in an attempt to associate him with the failed evolutionary framework of Lamarckian evolution.  But what made Darwin’s theory of evolution so successful was the fact that he identified two plausible mechanisms for evolutionary change that had nothing to do with Lamarck’s proposed mechanism: natural selection and sexual selection.  When Darwin is talking of use and disuse modifying parts, he is not speaking of individual animals and therefore Lamarckian evolution.  Darwin was ahead of his time in viewing change in terms of populations.  Thus, he is not claiming that a dog that loses its limb will give rise to offspring with missing limbs, but that a population of, say, birds who lose the power of flight with disuse over successive generations will pass this on to their offspring.  This is not Lamarckian evolution, but well within the purview of natural selection.  In the case of flightless birds, for instance, flight is not necessary if there are no predators and ample food can be found by foraging on the ground.  Thus, because flight requires lots of caloric intake to maintain, and flight is not necessary in environments with ample food and no predators, the disuse leads to flightless creatures.  This is not Lamarckianism, wherein a single bird breaks a wing and produces offspring with broken wings, but the product of a long succession of selection pressures against the caloric intake necessary to maintain flight.  But I will quote Darwin himself to show that he does not endorse Lamarckian evolution:  “There is not sufficient evidence to induce us to believe that mutilations are ever inherited; and I should prefer explaining the entire absence of the anterior tarsi in Ateuchus [...] by the long-continued effects of disuse in their progenitors.”[1, emphasis mine]  Darwin’s own example of natural selection favoring the disuse of certain characteristics was set out in his observations of beetles being favored by natural selection for vestigial, nonfunctional wings because those with functional wings were easily caught in the wind and blown out to sea to drown.  As can be seen, only a very careless reading of The Origin of Species could lead one to conclude that Darwin was endorsing the view that acquired characteristics can be inherited.

Dr. Harrub’s lecture was quite lengthy, so I shall stop here and continue my dissection of his claims in a later post.  Here I’ve tried to tackle the introduction and Dr. Harrub’s continual misunderstandings concerning The Origin of Species, a book that I’ve had the pleasure of reading and actually understanding.  I do not know if Dr. Harrub has read this book, but I will presume that he has not or that he has at least forgotten it or misinterpreted it, because the only other alternative is that he is being willfully deceptive when he argues that it makes racist claims and espouses Lamarckian evolution.

[1]. Charles Darwin: The Origin of Species.  New York: Bantam Books, 1999.

Like so many others, I possess a strong desire to arbitrarily bestow a name upon things, though I know this is mere formality and hardly important, because I almost believe that doing so will solidify a muddled concept, ending my confusion with the congealing, coagulating effects of semantics.  For this reason, I have searched for a fitting name for my worldview, my philosophy.  At first I thought the word atheist would work.  This was a word tinged with history, soured by time, and just waiting to be reclaimed for some positive value.  It seemed to imply various important elements of my personal philosophy, like a rejection of supernaturalism, and that appeased me well enough for many years.

Lately, though, atheist just seems too limiting a description.  It is true that I disbelieve in God, but the implications of atheism are not as solid as I would prefer.  Even a left-leaning hippie “buddhist”, believing in nonsense like reincarnation, ghosts, souls, spirits, and the healing power of magnets and prayer, could be described as an atheist even in spite of clinging so desperately to such ridiculous, off-putting beliefs.  And it is also true that as atheism gains popular support, so too will it become more of a politicized rallying point than any mark of intellectual integrity.  I fear it may become just another rest stop for rebellious teens seeking to shock and awe their friends and family.

So I have continued my search for a suitable name, or some sort of nomenclature that would adequately describe my thoughts on epistemology, metaphysics, science, and more.  The description skeptic seemed to fit.  With this name, I expand beyond mere atheism and proudly display an open encouragement of critical thinking and evaluation.  For unlike that special brand of atheism that rejects god on some emotional whim while uncritically accepting the existence of souls, big foot, aliens, alternative medicine, or a number of other claims lacking evidence, a skeptic rightfully doubts baseless assertions.  Of course, though the term skeptic offers a more expansive and fruitful description of my personal ideals, it, too is fraught with problems.  Many skeptics, for instance, insist that religion or questions of God’s existence are off limits.  This seems to me to rob the skeptical movement of its teeth, for religion is one of the biggest perpetrators of uncritical thinking, and in fact it has the market cornered even in giving names to such thinking, as this is precisely what faith means, to believe without evidence.  Imagine, for instance, if a skeptic were to assert that we can argue against anything except, say, big foot or alternative medicine.  We would rightly chastise this as an arbitrary and even unfounded limitation.  If the lights of skepticism show big foot, alternative medicine, or even religious faith to be hollow, then by all means we should allow those lights to shine.  For these reasons, I am reluctant to call myself a skeptic as well, though it is perhaps the most fitting description of my views.  It also doesn’t help that many confuse skepticism with pessimism, and many more confuse skepticism with the unreasonable denial of solidly supported, evidence-based claims, like global warming.

Of course, there are many more terms I could apply to myself.  I could call myself a freethinker, but that just seems too antiquated.  I could call myself a humanist, were it not for my general disdain for moral philosophy and ethics.  Perhaps, were I desperate enough, I could call myself a “bright”, but not even I am pretentious or drunken enough to consider adopting such a ham-fisted, prefabricated, and plastic term.

I suppose I should simply ignore my desires to designate my beliefs and philosophy with some sort of appellation.  It is surely better to simply describe my beliefs at length rather than risk misinterpretation by using some single name.  Or perhaps I could simply call myself what my mother has always called me: asshole.  Yes, that is one description that surely fits.

The Easter Bunny has finally hopped out of town and Easter is over; I can finally relax my tense, rigid muscles and sleep a full eight hours.  The Easter Bunny, you see, is the most terrifying creature in the universe.  The thing shits chocolate eggs, for christ’s sake, and then entices children into eating them.  But we overlook this disgusting fact because of the Easter Bunny’s cute veneer and outward appearance.  What harm could a fluffy little rabbit cause?  Put that aside, however, and imagine not some beautiful rabbit laying eggs in your garden, but instead a grizzled 45-year-old man, popping a squat in your yard in random places, depositing oval chocolate globs that are somehow prewrapped in places your children will surely look, and then going on and on about Jesus and his sacrifice.  As you can see, the change in appearance from rabbit to man provokes a completely different response, as a man who behaves in the same way as the dreaded Easter Bunny would be locked in the nearest psych ward and given massive quantities of prescription drugs.  We shouldn’t let the seductive rabbit appearance fool us into complacent acceptance of this beast’s vile nature.

At any rate, it isn’t just the Easter Bunny that is a disgusting, foul creature.  Rabbits in general are filthy beasts.  Evolution has been so cruel to these animals that it has haphazardly thrown together a digestive system that would only make sense to a complete idiot.  Basically, rabbits are forced to digest their food not once, but twice.  This means that rabbits must eat their food once, wait for it to come out as little pellets, and then eat those pellets.  It almost literally eats its own shit.  This knowledge really makes you reconsider eating round-shaped objects that emerge from a rabbit’s ass, whether they are chocolate or come with a creamy center or not.

What egg-shitting rabbits have to do with Jesus is a bit of a stretch.  Apparently the Christians of yore didn’t have any fun parties, so they simply stole various pagan festivities and co-opted them for their own purposes, combining the traditional guilt of Christianity with the joyous celebration of paganism in some sort of hodge-podge construction almost as poorly conceived as the rabbit’s digestive system.  Easter was once a fertility festival.  It makes sense, then, that the rabbit would be its symbol, as they are reknowned for their prolific breeding, a fact that further sours my opinion of the rabbit, as it is simply not fair that an animal that eats what emerges from its butt can constantly get laid when I can barely convince my left hand to touch me in my naughty place.

Thankfully, of course, Easter is over, and now there aren’t any more holidays to fear for a long, long time.  But I’ll gladly take the razor-blade laden apples of Halloween over the chocolate feces of rabbits, any day!