Example of plate tectonics? Are you thinking of my example of Fred Hoyle and the Big Bang? Though if you want to talk about plate tectonics, see the case of Sir Harold Jeffreys. After Harry Hess demonstrated plate tectonics in the 1960s to the satisfaction of the vast majority of geologists (he was armed with rather convincing data, including direct measurements of the rate of movement of the plates), Sir Harold refused to accept it. He'd been strongly against continental drift since the 1920s, and wasn't about to accept it. Sir Harold died in 1989, still having never accepted plate tectonics. (The geology journals published his papers "disproving" it for a few years, and eventually stopped.)
A.L. Wegener wrote about the similarities of geology and biology on both sides of separated continents as well as their similar coastline shapes and hypothesized there was once a single continent. It was ~1920. No mechanism was known, I don't know if he postulated one. That is the example I had in mind.
Also, I wasn't explaining my continuum on the basis of anything you posted, per se. I was just describing the continuum of "overwhelming evidence" from different perspectives. The examples of the holdouts like Behe had nothing to do with anything you posted.
The more interesting point is when the theory could be considered part of the solid scientific consensus. And I'd cite that point as being in the early 20th century when the population genetics arguments fell apart. I'd say that we'd clearly passed that point when the Modern Synthesis became widely accepted.
(emphasis mine) Would you be talking about the time of the Scopes trial, (1925)? And you call that the time of scientific consensus? What poor communicators those scientists must have been to be unable to convince very many people in the lay community including those in the entire US school system!
However, I have more evidence than mere opinion. These two papers are from the same web page:
DOES EVOLUTION QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE? - Ariel A. Roth; Origins 4(1):4-10 (1977); EDITORIAL
The Humanist, an official publication of the American Humanist Association and the American Ethical Union, recently (January/February 1977) published a statement affirming evolution as a principle of science. The statement, signed by 163 scholars, most of whom are biologists in leading universities of the United States, was prepared for distribution to major public school districts in the United States. Among its sponsors are such notables as Isaac Asimov, Linus Pauling, and George Gaylord Simpson.
The statement points out that "all known forms of life including human beings developed by a lengthy process of evolution." This broad perspective on evolution is what Kerkut (1960, p. 157) calls the "general theory of evolution," in contrast to the "special theory of evolution" which deals with small variations in organisms such as have been observed in nature and the laboratory. The statement in the Humanist also indicates that the principle of biological evolution meets "exceptionally well" the criteria demanded by science of being "firmly established ... on rigorous evidence" and that in recent years more confirmation of the principle of natural selection and adaptation as proposed by Darwin and Wallace has continued to accumulate. The statement further asserts that "creationism is not scientific," while evolution is "strictly scientific."
On the other hand there has been an ongoing debate within the scientific community, largely among individuals who believe in evolution, about the validity of evolution as a scientific principle. The statement published in the Humanist suggests that under the pressure of current criticism leveled at evolution, basic scientific values may be overlooked or given secondary place over other factors.
Much of the debate regarding the validity of evolution revolves around the elementary notion that science explains things on the basis of cause and effect. Simply stated, given certain conditions, certain results can be expected. This feature gives science its predictive qualities. For instance the statement "a magnet attracts iron" can be tested and used to predict what will happen when the two are near each other.
Hans Reichenbach in The Rise of Scientific Philosophy (1951, p. 89) emphasizes the necessity of a predictive quality for science:
A mere report of relations observed in the past cannot be called knowledge; if knowledge is to reveal objective relations of physical objects, it must include reliable predictions. A radical empiricism, therefore, denies the possibility of knowledge.
The concept of predictability and subsequent testability has prompted the noted scientific philosopher Karl Popper to further emphasize that if an explanation cannot be adequately tested, it is not scientific. The concept must be testable (i.e., falsifiable) to qualify. Any kind of explanation will not do; it must be amenable to a testing process. If it survives testing, it can qualify.....
You can see where this discussion is going and it clearly discusses the events of the time, 1977! It certainly doesn't sound like there was a "broad scientific consensus" which you believe occurred decades earlier. It's actually an excellent paper on its own merit, BTW.
ORGANIZATION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE; John C. Walton; Lecturer in Chemistry; University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland
[conclusion]...The postulate of creation of living structures by external intervention undoubtedly restores order, harmony and simplification to the data of physics and biology. At present there is no unambiguous evidence of a scientific nature for the existence of the external entity, but this should not be regarded as a drawback. Many key scientific postulates such as the atomic theory, kinetic theory or the applicability of wave functions to describing molecular properties were, and still are, equally conjectural. Their acceptance depended, and still depends, on the comparison of their predictions with observables. The value of any given postulate lies in its ability to correlate, simplify and organize the observables. Judged by this standard special creation suffers from fewer disadvantages than any alternative explanation of the origin of life.
As you may have noted, this paper is one supporting the Intelligent Design hypothesis. "Special Creation", I imagine you are aware, was the early terminology used.
So let's look at a couple of issues here to better understand the perspective I am talking about.
First, we seem to agree religious beliefs are not scientific. You want them included in the scientific theories which competed with Darwin's. Neither of us want them included in current science but we recognize there are a few holdouts who have joined the world of science but maintain by various belief schemes, their personal beliefs in gods.
Yet here are 2 editorials written as recently as 1977 with very serious discussion of the science of the day, and the conflict which the theory of evolution poses to the religious belief the Bible correctly describes the origin of species. One of the papers notes,
"a statement affirming evolution as a principle of science. The statement, signed by 163 scholars, most of whom are biologists in leading universities of the United States, was prepared for distribution to major public school districts in the United States. Among its sponsors are such notables as Isaac Asimov, Linus Pauling, and George Gaylord Simpson."
It certainly implies there was a change in the scientific consensus, maybe in the previous few years, maybe a decade in the making, it would be hard to pin down. Why else would you have biologists needing to publicly proclaim, it's time to stop arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution?
I completely agree with you about the scientific evidence and consensus
if you exclude the large number of scientists who had a much harder time letting go of their previous religious beliefs. Where do you fit in those 'scientists' who continued to look for ways in which Creationism, Special Creation, and speciation was not explained by the theory of evolution? Why do you include them among the serious scientists of Darwin's day, and exclude them in determining your scientific consensus the early 20th century? You include their Biblical 'evidence' in Darwin's day and exclude their 'scientific arguments' of the 70s.
I don't include Biblical evidence in with true scientific evidence simply because people believed it. But the reality is, as you noted, there are 'scientists' who do (less so every day). I do consider those scientists when assessing the scientific consensus on evolution theory. According to you, Biblical evidence was valid at the time of Darwin. Do you dismiss it's historical scientific validity in the 60s? the 70s? Today? I'm asking about your historical, not personal definition of valid science. And do you negate the arguments and evidence Behe put forth supposedly showing evidence of irreducible complexity in your assessment of "overwhelming evidence"?
We both agree Behe had no case. But how do you fit his hypothesis into the question of whether there was a scientific consensus
throughout the scientific community in the early 20th century then, and especially in the 30-40 years ago you say I am wrong to cite?
Well I'll call it progress. At least you're no longer saying that Creationist claims are based on 40 year old science. And you're no longer denying that they could have understood the basic connection between genes and chromosomes in the 30s and 40s.
Not so. No offense but this is another part of the problem here. You are speaking of this whole issue as if I had the facts all wrong. And I see it as we are merely speaking from two different points of view as to what constitutes overwnelming evidence and scientific consensus.
Who is "they"? You ignore a large body of scientists here who didn't want to believe their Bibles were wrong. And you keep changing your definition of scientific evidence to include or exclude Biblical evidence, depending on what you want to declare. The '40 year old science' I refer to is the scientific rationale that has been repeated in the scientific literature throughout the 20th century. That is the claim that the theory of evolution had not yet proved it could explain speciation. Genetic science ended the debate. But it didn't end it when genetic science was discovered. It ended when genetic science started mapping genomes.
I may not have been unaware of some of the early work in genetic science. Not a big deal. Who knows the history of early work in every single scientific field? But those events have not changed my view that the real point of overwhelming evidence was when we could look at the genomes and trace the line of descent. I'll call it progress when you recognize that drawing a line on a continuum is a subjective decision. And when you explain why and when you exclude Biblical evidence from science and why and when you exclude Bible believer holdouts in your consensus of scientists.
You may not believe that Mendel's laws of genetics combined with the knowledge that mutations could happen really is a sufficient understanding of genetics for evolution theory. You'd probably still be surprised to discover that the first serious attempt at trying to establish a molecular clock for when species diverged was in 1962.
Not surprised at all. It fits with the 30-40 years ago in my statement.
But it isn't worth my while to try much harder to convince you on those points. I've spent a lot more energy than I intended on this tangential point. And I'm willing to let our disagreements sit roughly where they are.
Which is what one expects when differences are those of opinion and perspective.
You (and Dr A) are looking at when the science actually did overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution, (I have no disagreements with you there). I am looking at when the science was so overwhelming, the 'scientists' who wanted to hold on to their belief in Creation, or Special Creation, or Intelligent Design, or 'evolution theory hasn't proved speciation' simply could no longer deny they were wrong. That came with a thorough understanding of genetic mechanisms and the beginning of manipulating those genes in successfully predicted ways* (30-40 years ago) and more absolutely with genome mapping (10-20 years ago), IMO.
*You could argue selective breeding could predict and test the theory of evolution. But you can also argue until we moved genes from one species to another, we hadn't truly made predictions and tested the theory since breeding between species produced mostly sterile offspring.
http://library.thinkquest.org/20830/Manipulating/Experimentation/GenEngineering/history.htm
...Selective breeding is a long, tedious process that has its limits. It is impossible through selective breeding to mix traits from two totally different species. If a junkyard owner wanted a guard dog that could squirt ink like an octopus, he would be unable to create such an animal. It is physically impossible, because the genetics of life are such that traits from two different organisms cannot be mixed. That is where genetic engineering comes in.
The Progress
Modern genetic engineering began in 1973 when Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen used enzymes to cut a bacteria plasmid and insert another strand of DNA in the gap. Both bits of DNA were from the same type of bacteria, but this milestone, the invention of recombinant DNA technology, offered a window into the previously impossible -- the mixing of traits between totally dissimilar organisms. To prove that this was possible, Cohen and Boyer used the same process to put a bit of frog DNA into a bacteria.
I would disagree with someone who said we need the abiogenesis piece of the theory as well but I could understand their perspective. I understand your perspective. You are looking at the real science. I just think you are ignoring the historical science and faulting me for not doing so.
I don't see I had my "facts" wrong. You have posted many "facts" I wasn't aware of. But the ones you have brought to my attention do not contradict my statement, "Evolution is a theory that passed into the 'overwhelming evidence for it' phase at least a decade or more ago and anyone but a science purist would probably say it happened 3-4 decades ago. In fact the bulk of arguments evolution deniers put forth are based on 40 year old science". Those science purists would be the ones waiting for the whole theory including abiogenesis.
It is amazing how often major scientific revolutions leave some prominent scientist denying the new world order to their deathbeds.
And in the case of evolution, perhaps much like the early European science of astronomy, the hurdle science must overcome of Biblical indoctrination of young scientists before they are introduced to the fields of science and the scientific process muddies the picture tremendously. Boggles
my mind, anyway.
Wise's conceptual approach. Here we have a man who interprets the Bible literally (I assume) and thus (and here I am going off a provisional psychological profile I have developed from reading the literature of fundamentalism and literalism) denies most, if not all, forms of relativism. However, when it comes to time to protect his most precious belief as explained Genesis and then masterfully summarized in John 3:16, he invokes such postpositivist language as "theory-ladenness" to justify his rejection of such a well-supported (I know that is the understatement of a lifetime) scientific theory as evolution. Such a double standard, if not bald-faced hypocrisy, is maddeningly and inconceivably unacceptable for any individual with a modicum of intellectual honesty.