Atheists who flunk Darwin
of Antonio Pozio appeared on Future the 01/04/10
In an editorial signed by Andrea Lavazza, the Avvenire said the essay by Fodor and Piattelli Palmarini.
Their book, released in February, made noise in the Anglo-Saxon world. It probably will in Italy, where the translation is announced for mid-April. On the other hand, a title like “Darwin's mistakes” it seems made on purpose to arouse opposition. The authors have clearly expressed the purpose in an article published in the journal “New Scientist”, in which they summarize the contents of the volume (leaving for Feltrinelli): natural selection has shown an insidious imperialist tendency, his ex-post explanations have spread from biology to a large number of other disciplines, from philosophy to psychology, from anthropology to sociology, up to aesthetics and even theology; then, if the effectiveness of selection in biology is demolished, the possibility of using it will also drop (out of turn, they believe) in other disciplines.
Their, the well-known philosopher Jerry Fodor and the cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli Palmarini, they make it clear that they are atheists and do not want to give weapons to creationists or supporters of intelligent design. But they think this contributes to the advancement of science, offering better explanations, strictly naturalistic. It is difficult not to agree on the often generic or unfounded applications of the concept of adaptation to the appreciation of art, to marriage behaviors or religious beliefs. More controversial is the thesis that other mechanisms must completely replace selection as the engine of evolution. It is less easy than critics and late-breaking supporters say to enter the debate, rather complex, like the book, certainly not an easy to read pamphlet. So what is the thesis of Fodor and Piattelli Palmarini? That evolution (that is, the change of living forms) it doesn't work as Darwinian orthodoxy thinks.
Simplifying, copying errors of genes occur in the reproduction of organisms leading to phenotypic mutations, that is, to changes in physical characteristics (or even in behaviors). Some new features allow individuals with them to better survive in their own habitat as well, mostly, to reproduce more, others render a bad service (a faster gazelle will be saved from the lion, a slower one will always end up eaten). In this sense, the environment selects the most suitable among the random variations and the species evolve. Anything, almost, of all this, instead say the authors. It is not the environment that drives the change, they are internal constraints of another kind, including the operation of the “master geniuses” (which command many structures of the body), the physico-chemical laws of form and self-organization ... To use an example proposed by Piattelli Palmarini, in the finch, a mutation that alters the shape of the upper half of the beak produces congruent changes in the bones of the skull, in the lower part of the beak, in the neck muscles and nerves. This, in other words, would prevent "selecting and refining each organ or trait separately for the blind game of nature". The criticism of the criticism was not long in coming. And not only from the Pasdaran of Darwinism. His “Nature”, a slating “institutional” by Massimo Pigliucci. Michael Ruse, one of the best known scholars of evolutionism, who confronted the proponents of intelligent design, spoke of "intensely irritating book" and "very bad arguments".
Two philosophers and cognitive scientists of the caliber of Ned Block and Philip Kitcher have tried to demolish in detail the positions of Fodor and Piattelli Palmarini by concluding that, without prejudice to respect for their previous works, “Darwin's mistakes”, despite the impressive literature cited, it is based on errors and distortions and is bound to be confusing.
"Science has made considerable progress since Darwin's time and certainly there have been invasions of the field of evolution, but this does not discredit the general principle of natural selection ", commented Francesco Scalfari of the university of Asti, one of the founders of the Italian Society of Evolutionary Biology. «The mechanism of “exaptation” studied by Gould and mentioned in the book (see box) it is well known: it does not constitute a revolution, but a further explanation in the concreteness of natural history ".
Fiorenzo Facchini is also very prudent, paleoanthropologist of the University of Bologna, contrary to evolutionary fundamentalism, but not willing to throw everything Darwin to the winds.
Someone spoke of "extended evolutionary theory", the authors replied that they wanted instead to operate "a real reversal". For a single book, which is based only on a rereading of some research, perhaps too ambitious a goal. But if the achievements of science are by definition always revisable, even the current Darwinian orthodoxy may undergo further adjustments over time. And all this will be done in the field, not with superficial controversies.
If a person wants to ruin their life on their own following who knows what profoundly sick impulse, go ahead…but what bothers me most about Jehovah's Witnesses is the fact that in several places in their Bible the same sentences as our Bible are reported but with different punctuation, which is equivalent to distorting the meaning of the message…I studied ( without practicing ) with them for three years, we'll say it like this, come ” infiltrated “, because I wanted to understand more beyond their explanations. And what seems like a perfect life is instead an existence controlled by the leaders who are, Moreover, very rich. Their hierarchy is very strict and does not allow errors on the part of the followers, under penalty of shameful and denigrating dismissal and who knows what sanctions…I have met very good and naive people who blindly believe in the control and teaching of the elderly but when I demonstrated to them the subtle manipulation done towards them, they were removed from me and told not to contact me again. On the other hand I received a visit from the Supervisors, another powerful arm of their hierarchy, which I had the pleasure of unmasking with facts and you know what I was told? ” if you came with us you could convert hundreds of people, bringing what you know to our benefit…” Kicking them out of my house was a great satisfaction. I'm sorry for the good people I met, but I must admit their great flaw: never ask yourself why…Jehovah's Witnesses are second only to Scientology in terms of power….This is why I left a comment.
Unfortunately, you're absolutely right. But my experiences are different, as I have a lady next door who has been bringing me magazines for two years, which I take and read, as long as I feel like it because I'm monotonous and I already know what they say. I spoke several times with her and with the one she brings with her, I told her the harshest things, from the false Bible (not just punctuation, their Bibles contain added words and lexical and verbal substitutions), of Watchtower delinquency, of the fact that they are a manipulated cult, etc. Lei, after having been absent for a few months, she then returned to the assault. They have dignity under their feet. The other day I asked her if, as a level playing field, I had given her my articles, she would have read them. After hesitation he said yes, he couldn't have said anything else. I told her “then I ask you eh!”, like they do. If he doesn't read it, I'll tell her not to come anymore, and what the hell, what's right is right, you're the one who comes to break up at my house and says you want to confront me, when it is clear that you want to convert me. I don't know what to do anymore, I've tried them all, I also treated her very badly.