How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution

In the fall of 1900, a young German physicist, Max Planck, began making calculations about the glow emitted by objects heated to high temperature. In retrospect, it seems like a small-bore problem, just the task to give a young scientist at the beginning of his career.

But if the question sounds minor, Planck's answer was not. His work led him to discover a new world, the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics, where matter is both a particle and a wave and where the predictable stability of Newton gives way to probabilistic uncertainty.

As Dennis Overbye of The New York Times once put it in these pages, Planck had grasped "a loose thread that when tugged would eventually unravel the entire fabric of what had passed for reality."

Physicists reeled. But physics survived. And once they got over their shock, scientists began testing Planck's ideas with observation and experiment, work that eventually produced computer chips, lasers, CAT scans and a host of other useful technologies - all made possible through our new understanding of the way the world works.

Biologists might do well to keep Planck in mind as they confront creationism and "intelligent design" and battle to preserve the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Usually, when confronting the opponents of evolution, biologists make the case that evolution should be taught because it is true.

They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it. Biologists cite research on microbes, or the eye, or the biology of the cell to shoot down arguments that life is so "irreducibly complex" that only a supernatural force or agent could have called it into being, as intelligent designers would have it.

>>I reject evolution as science because, of all the brilliant people who I have had the privilege to debate, none have been able to provide a list of axioms agreed upon for this theory, let alone a logical proof that connects the assertions to these axioms. With the millions of hours devoted to this theory I find it inexcusable that none of the "experts" have taken the time to lay the foundation.<<

You said that very well!

Evolution is a phenomena that the fossil record tends to show. Natural selection, mutation, speciation et. al., are all theories of how that phenomena happens.

The secret sauce of TOE arguments are:

The definition of a species is different for the fossil record and current animals. It is a big jump.

The species of animals developed by the fossil record may also have merges instead of just branches. Mergers would be extremely hard to explain at this point in time, after so much effort has been devoted to extinction as a mechanism for NS.

The big points are:
We have current examples of fertile species crossing. Wolphin (a dolphin, pseudoorca FERTILE cross, a daughter 3/4 dolphin 1/4 pseudoorca), some grass species that interbred and other species crosses that probably should be looked at again.

Evolutionists are not looking in a see no evil fashion.

That's the problem, and you hit it in a nutshell.

DK

Hi! :-)

if I were to suggest that they create God and choose His properties in the same way mathematicians create theories and choose their axioms

I wish folks would be so logical.

People usually choose their faith either by emotion or the “environment” they grew up in. IMHO, logic has very little to do with it. Not often I see folks sit back and really take the time to evaluate and take a very hard look at their stance (I am also including stuff such as astrology, homeopathy, radical/extreme environmentalism, etc.) on their “beliefs”.

Spending many waking moments (I used to have more free time in the lab and/or control rooms than I do now “sigh”) arguing this very stuff over the past four years has truly made me look at every facet of my personal belief system.

Similar to my college years, the crevo threads have introduced me to just a tiny bit of the minutia (there is so much I don’t know it’s appalling) of both biology and evolutionary theory. (Not my chosen fields). So in taking the time to really read all the arguments and links presented by both sides, I had to re-evaluate my “beliefs”. I always have “believed” in evolution, however, using the term “belief “ in itself is a problem. I no longer believe in evolution, however, I do accept the mountains of evidence that shows evolution is a valid theory that has held up to the 145 years or so of scrutiny with new data being added every day.

Not only did I have to really look at evolution, I had to take a hard look at my personal view about Genesis. I used to believe that Genesis was a pretty good description of the formation of the universe and thusly, I was able to reconcile it with with my scientific training. However, these threads have made take a damn hard look at both. I finally had to accept that the two cannot be synonymous and I was forced to conclude that Genesis just plain got it wrong. ID falls within this same category. It is not science (no matter how hard it tries to purport itself as being so) and basically IMHO, ID is a bunch of codswallop that was “invented” to try and reconcile the irreconcilable.

This left me with the conclusion, after a very hard internal struggle (those pesky belief systems again), that Genesis is a cool story about origins, however, it really is just that, a story.

You know what I enjoy.....people who get their science from a newspaper! If you want to have an informed opinion about science and the debate about creation vs. evolution, at the very least pick up a Scientific American magazine. For crying out loud!

You know what I enjoy?...people who jump to wild and uninformed conclusions.

When I post an article, it often has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe. I post it because I think others might find it interesting...and perhaps might start an informed discussion.

As a professional E.E., I can assure you that the NY Times is only one (and often not terribly relevant) source upon which I rely for scientific information.

"I suspect that virtually all religious would object vehemently if I were to suggest that they create God and choose His properties in the same way mathematicians create theories and choose their axioms... You must lay out a theory with God as an axiom."

You are drawing the wrong comparison. God is not the axiom, the existence of God is the axiom. What you are saying is like calling a measurement, like miles or pounds, the axiom.

"The God axiom must play an intrinsic role in the proof, that is, it must not be possible to derive the prediction without it. "

In a proof, the axiom does not have to be the only explanation, it just has to be a possible explanation. We prove B is true as long as A (the axiom) is true. C could be the axiom of another competing theory in which B is also true because of C.

"If you can do this, you may be on to something and then we can compare the power and utility of your theory to the power and utility of competing theories."

Good. At least we agree in theory that the existence of God COULD be part of a scientific theory. Most evolutionists do not accept this.

"I think I can [distinguish the acceptance of mathematical axioms from the acceptance of God's existence]. The nature of the commitment is completely different. Religious people accept God's existence as a True Fact. Mathematicians shape their theories to suit their purposes and don't think of them as True Facts."

I meant in the sense that math is applied to evolutionary theory. I assume you believe species really did originate from common ancestry.

"It all depends on what you mean by science. I was using it, and I think this is the common usage, to mean bodies of knowledge studied by the scientific method, the stuff you learn about in high school science classes, the things written up in Nature and Science. It is often mathematical, but the math isn't the object of the study, simply a means."

That is like saying true science is the study of science. By your standards we might need to reclassify mathematics as a religion or at least a philosophy. The Dewey decimal system puts math with the "true" sciences, not the social sciences. Einstein calls math a science in the more limited sense (even though he advised against the use of the word "true"). Math is so essential to science in general, I don't see how science could exist without it.

"you ought to be able to tell me some attribute of God that you have chosen simply based on its utility in the same way the mathematicians accept or reject the axiom of choice or the parallel postulate."

That would be theology. God is unchanging, cannot lie, all powerful, patient, cares about the needs of people and other living things, eternal, does not bribe or coerce people to follow Him, and on and on. Christians narrowly limit their theology to what the Bible says.

The belief in a God with these attributes is useful in the real world in the same way mathematics is useful in the real world. For example, prayer according to the will of God can change the outcome of events. Or we can rely on the cause and effect patterns described in the Bible as a rational basis for decisions.

In a proof, the axiom does not have to be the only explanation, it just has to be a possible explanation.

I said intrinsic to the proof, not required for all proofs. Any proof can be trivially modified to add extra assumptions.

If there is not at least one theorem that requires some axiom of a theory, then that axiom is unnecessary. Is that how you think of God, as an unnessary axiom?

Now, for my own part, I would reject the unnecessary axiom and accept the simpler theory. But I am interested to see you use "the existence of God" an an axiom in a deductive proof. I've laid out the rules; go for it.

Most evolutionists do not accept [that the existence of God COULD be part of a scientific theory].

Prove them wrong.

I assume you believe species really did originate from common ancestry.

I think it is a very good explanation for many observations. I hope you see the difference between my statement and yours.

However, I also think it is false. Are you familiar with endosymbiosis? How about lateral transfer? Both of these are accepted forms of evolution but involve non-common ancestry.

Math is so essential to science in general, I don't see how science could exist without it.

Yes, it is essential and modern science could not exist without it. So what? Free energy is essential to life, but it is not life. Grammar is essential to literature, but it isn't literature.

Math is not Science in the common meaning of the term because it isn't studied with the scientific method (although I understand there is a movement toward more empirical methods in math and that might make for a different answer). I'm surprised you're making this elementary mistake. Isn't the scientific method still taught as a concept in school? Don't they still teach the difference between deduction and induction?

Christians narrowly limit their theology to what the Bible says. ... The belief in a God with these attributes is useful in the real world...

So, are you actually saying that Christians don't really believe their theology is True, but rather have chosen to accept it because it is useful or convenient? I doubt many Christians would agree.

"I said intrinsic to the proof, not required for all proofs. Any proof can be trivially modified to add extra assumptions. If there is not at least one theorem that requires some axiom of a theory, then that axiom is unnecessary."

I concede that point. The axiom must actually be used.

The way you worded it earlier confused me. I thought you were saying that the theory would only be valid if there were no other workable theories.

"Prove them wrong."

I think I already have proved that the existence of God COULD be expressed as a part of a scientific theory. There are some around this forum who say anything with God in it is automatically unscientific because of not being able to disprove it. That's my point. The existence of God is axiomatic. Scientific theory requires axioms.

"I think it is a very good explanation for many observations. I hope you see the difference between my statement and yours."

Yes. And I also see a difference between your statement and what other evolutionist say. Some evolutionists in this forum describe evolutionary origin of species as "fact", "true", "real", and so on.

"Math is not Science in the common meaning of the term because it isn't studied with the scientific method."

The word "mathematics" comes from the Greek máthema meaning "science, knowledge, or learning" and mathematikós meaning "fond of learning".

*Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space and change. It has historically developed, through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, from counting, calculation, measurement, and the study of the shapes and motions of physical objects. [wikipedia]

Considering that math is generally part of the scientific method (particularly the hypothesis), it is properly classified as science.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Hypothesis_development

Math is as much a part of science as is logic or observation. Logic and math are not ALL of science, but they are science.

Albert Einstein called mathematics "the Queen of the Sciences".

The Library of Congress uses this breakdown:

A GENERAL WORKS
B PHILOSOPHY. PSYCHOLOGY. RELIGION
C AUXILIARY SCIENCES OF HISTORY
D HISTORY: GENERAL AND OLD WORLD
E HISTORY: AMERICA
F HISTORY: AMERICA (mainly local)
G GEOGRAPHY. ANTHROPOLOGY. RECREATION
H SOCIAL SCIENCES
J POLITICAL SCIENCE
K LAW
L EDUCATION
M MUSIC AND BOOKS ON MUSIC
N FINE ARTS
P LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
Q SCIENCE

Science (General)
Mathematics
Astronomy
Physics
Chemistry
Geology
Natural history - Biology
Botany
Zoology
Human anatomy
Physiology
Microbiology

R MEDICINE
S AGRICULTURE
T TECHNOLOGY
U MILITARY SCIENCE
V NAVAL SCIENCE
Z BIBLIOGRAPHY. LIBRARY SCIENCE. INFORMATION RESOURCES (GENERAL)

Interestingly, evolutionary origins of species is a mixture of science and history. Historical proof works differently than scientific proof. Most evolutionists do not make the distinction.

Math is pure science. Evolutionary theory is partially science.

"So, are you actually saying that Christians don't really believe their theology is True, but rather have chosen to accept it because it is useful or convenient?"

That's like saying an architect does not really "believe" a building built according to design will stand up, but that the math he uses is useful and convenient. Obviously he cannot know the future experientially, but he can have reasonable confidence based on previous experience that the math he uses will work.

The willingness to observe the ultility of a theory enables us to believe it works.

Faith is based on reasonable evidence, not necessarily exhaustive evidence. Faith is not believing something contradictory to the evidence.

Seeing the utility, usefulness or convenience of the existence of God are not the same thing as faith, but they certainly do not contradict having faith.

I think I already have proved that the existence of God COULD be expressed as a part of a scientific theory.

No, you have only claimed it. I have challenged you to show explicitly how you can use the existence of God as an axiom in a formal scientific theory. (I omitted one other constraint - the theory must be consistent.) That is one way to prove that it can be done, another is some kind of existence proof, but I don't see how you can do that in a convincing way.

My intuition is that you will discover that you will not be able to make predictions assuming the existence of God as He is generally conceived because, being unconstrained, no outcomes are incompatible with His existence. I await your demonstration that my intuition is wrong.

And I also see a difference between your statement and what other evolutionist say.

I think if you press them directly on the point, they will agree with me that no scientific theory is provably or knowably True, but can only be shown to be false.

The Library of Congress ...

OK, this is pointless. What term do you suggest I use so that you will know I mean study by the scientific method? (You do agree that will exclude math, right?)

Interestingly, evolutionary origins of species is a mixture of science and history. Historical proof works differently than scientific proof. Most evolutionists do not make the distinction.

So is geology but I don't see anyone complaining about classifying it as science. Also, I think you're wrong, most evolutionists do understand the difference. That is what they mean when they say evolution is "both fact and theory."

That's like saying an architect does not really "believe" a building built according to design will stand up, but that the math he uses is useful and convenient.

No, it is not like that at all. Rather it is like the difference between an architect who will choose to use brick or glass at need and another who thinks only brick buildings are True and that glass ones are Heresy.

No more quibbling, humor me. Tell me some attributes you ascribe to God not because you think they are True but because you chose to do so for your own purposes and could imagine different circumstances where you would have chose differently.

"In the beginning...there was the word...and the word was God...and the word was with God"

Hi infocats! According to the Gospel of John (KJV), the text goes:

"1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
"1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
"1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
"1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
"1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

That is, the Father and the Son were One in the Beginning (as well, I might add, forever, eternally One). The Son is the Logos, i.e., the Word the Father SPOKE to invoke the creation, from which the harmonic Universe ensued in the course of its evolution. The Son is also called the Alpha (First Beginning) and the Omega (the final End -- i.e., goal or purpose -- of Creation).

At least this is my "take" on the meaning of these verses. Funny thing is, Big Bang cosmology seems to substantiate the account given in John. Increasingly, the big bang theory is accumulating solid supporting evidence; e.g., the cosmic microwave background radiation -- a kind of "music of the spheres," so to speak. In other words, the "spoken Word" (which still echoes or resonates today, as confirmed by the COBE satellite) is being studied to tell us about the universal origin, of how the galaxies and stars came to exist...all from the command in the Genesis account: "Let there be Light!" (For that is the meaning of the spoken Word.)

But of course, science has no method and, thus, no interest, in looking for the Creator. That doesn't mean there wasn't one, only that this is not a "scientific question." We have the philosophers and the theologians to work on that: These knowledge disciplines DO have the methods to conduct such an inquiry.

Thank you ever so much for writing, infocats!

"No, you have only claimed it."

OK. More specifically, we agree that there is no compelling reason why the existence of God could not POTENTIALLY be used as an axiom in a scientific theory. Otherwise you are simply asking me to do something you are convinced cannot be done. Are you really willing to examine the possibility?

"My intuition is that you will discover that you will not be able to make predictions assuming the existence of God as He is generally conceived because, being unconstrained, no outcomes are incompatible with His existence. I await your demonstration that my intuition is wrong."

Good observation. If reality could be explained by a single axiom - that God exists - it might be "true" within itself but would be meaningless for all practical purposes. It would be no better than saying God exists but doesn't want anyone to know it. Admittedly, this is not a simple matter or someone would have already done it.

"That is what they mean when they say evolution is both fact and theory."

The phrase should be "speculation and theory." The history part is speculation, which is OK as long it is treated as such. I guess you are right that history plays a role in other sciences as well. Crime scene investigation uses forensic science to recreate events. But it is not mutually exclusive from other ways of verifying what happened. Evolution, however, does not have the benefit that more recent history has, like witnesses or video recordings, etc.

"What term do you suggest I use so that you will know I mean study by the scientific method?"

Natural science is a better distinction. Math is integral to the scientific method. Math is not a natural science. This might be taken to mean it is not as exact of a science, but technically it is more of an "exact science" as the figure of speech goes. It also does not make it any less useful compared to other sciences.

"Rather it is like the difference between an architect who will choose to use brick or glass at need and another who thinks only brick buildings are True and that glass ones are Heresy."

Or maybe it is like the bystander who believes there was an architect of a building, and another who says it is unscientific to think so. These analogies are just too easy to abuse when making a point.

"Tell me some attributes you ascribe to God not because you think they are True but because you chose to do so for your own purposes and could imagine different circumstances where you would have chose differently."

That is a very worthy challenge. In fact it seems like a pretty good approach to theology. This is no small undertaking though.

Let me be sure I understand the challenge. I am not trying to prove the existence of God, but rather formulating a useful theory where the existence of God is axiomatic. The test of its usefulness is whether the theory has practical, real world predictions that are verifiable and not easily explained by alternative theories which are also useful.

Is this the challenge? If I can do this you would be willing to support the scientific validity of this particular creationist viewpoint?

How is this for a start?

1. God wants me to know He is real.

I will chose this for my first axiom because if it is not true then my attempt to formulate such a theory will fail anyway.

I will proceed with additional attributes and specific real-world predictions after getting your feedback. (And after I have had time to think of what they should be.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.