How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution

New York Times ^ | July 5, 2005 | Cornelia Dean

[infocats]

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.

[unlearner]

"I should also have pointed out that algebra is math and not a pure science"

mathematics - n : a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement

You are really showing your ignorance. You go around calling creationism unscientific and do not even know what true science is. Math is pure science.

That is why condescending, high and mighty, evolutionists are so offensive when they go around saying creationism in unscientific.

"Yes but this is the kind of faith that is fundamental to reasoning and logic. These things are assumptions which are necessary to perform basic logic itself. Anyone who reasons must have this faith and people use it in everyday life, whether to help them find their car keys or to figure out what happened to the TV reception. This is necessary faith. The faith in intelligent design is different as it is not a necessary to perform logic."

You cannot demonstrate that faith in God is less rational than the belief that the symmetric axiom of algebra is true (i.e. reflective of the way the real world operates). You also cannot demonstrate that the "kind" of faith is different.

Evolutionists do not have any consensus among them about the fundamental essential axioms that are needed for the theory to be true. For example, is time constant? Have the basic forces (gravity, elctro-magnetic, strong and weak) always existed in their present form? Are the laws of physics constant in all places in the universe and at all times in history? If so, does that necessitate that matter has always existed only in its present form?

This is just scratching the surface.

Evolution as adaptation is an observable phenomenon. However, the idea that all living creatures have a single common ancestor defies logic on the face of it. Common ancestry would imply that the genetic information (diversity) existed in simpler life forms in ancient history. This would lead one to believe that types of living organisms would be more numerous and diverse rather than fewer. Evolution proposes that life forms were both simpler and less diverse - an idea that is self-contradictory.

[RightWingAtheist]

[philman_36]

What frosts me is how creationism is always, always, defined in the Christian terms of a 6,000 year old universe.
Oh, Poppycock! Have you never heard of a Pre-Adamite World world? Lots of argument one way or the other, but all of those dinosaur bones had to come from somewhere.
(for your further consideration...Isaiah 14:12-14...just which "nations" did Lucifer weaken and lead in rebellion against G_d if not pre-Adamite nations?)

[bobdsmith]

I won't argue. Mathematics could be defined as a science if you define science quite generally.

I also don't think Creationism is unscientific. I just think it is bad science.

You cannot demonstrate that faith in God is less rational than the belief that the symmetric axiom of algebra is true (i.e. reflective of the way the real world operates). You also cannot demonstrate that the "kind" of faith is different.

No I can't but that isn't what makes the assumptions different. My point is that faith in these basic axioms, and faith in several philosophical axioms (such as I exist, I am not just a brain in a jar, the universe has patterns that can be observed, etc) is a necessary prerequisite to logic. Without them you simply cannot have logical reasoning. Anyone who tries to "do" science is going to need to assume that kind of thing.

But assumption of an intelligent designer is not one of the basic assumptions needed to reason logically. Just as the assumption of aliens, the assumption that my next door neighbour is a vampire, or an assumption of the tooth fairy is necessary to reason logically.

Evolutionists do not have any consensus among them about the fundamental essential axioms that are needed for the theory to be true. For example, is time constant? Have the basic forces (gravity, elctro-magnetic, strong and weak) always existed in their present form? Are the laws of physics constant in all places in the universe and at all times in history? If so, does that necessitate that matter has always existed only in its present form?

Replace "evolutionists" with "scientists" because your criticism above is levelled at all scientific fields. All sciences assume certain constants extend back in time. Yes perhap gravity has not always been constant, but as far as we know nothing can change the gravitational constant, in fact it is likely to cause problems with planet orbits if it had been significantly different in the past.

However, the idea that all living creatures have a single common ancestor defies logic on the face of it.

That is irrelevant considering that the fossil record is clear evidence that common descent has occured. The pattern of the fossil record is compatible with common descent against the odds - high odds. If we were to create a random fossil record every second for a billion years the chances are that not one of them would have a patter that supports common descent. Yet the fossil record on Earth does. So many conveniences, a complete lack of fossil cases that would immediately destroy the idea of common descent (where are the mammals in the cambrian? etc)

Common ancestry would imply that the genetic information (diversity) existed in simpler life forms in ancient history.

No it wouldn't. Common descent simply implies that species today are derived from earlier species in the past. Common Descent was accepted by science before genetics was even discovered. And the theory of evolution as it stands today does not require genetic diversity of today's species to exist in past species. Populations can increase in diversity one generation to the next.

Evolution proposes that life forms were both simpler and less diverse - an idea that is self-contradictory.

Well that is what the fossil record shows as well - simpler and less diverse.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I'm not registering with these weasels.

Anybody have a login for anti-NYTimes FReepers?

[infocats]

What about political science? Nothing but electrons. Sure

You got me...cheap shot though ;-)

Politics (and I suppose political science as well) is said to be the "art of compromise...hardly a science.

There really is no room in science for compromise...although rules may change as new evidence presents itself and after a thorough scientific revue.

[infocats]

I'm not registering with these weasels.

Anybody have a login for anti-NYTimes FReepers?

You might try Bug Me Not

[COBOL2Java]

That is one of the best books I've read. Very fascinating stuff.

[RightWhale]

Political science is in Aristotle's [or Plato's, or both] school category of Practique, as opposed to Science [which includes religion, maybe a surprise to some].

[Doctor Stochastic]

But his opinion is shared by many of the anti-science crowe. Of course, some think science is out to disprove Scientology or Islam rather than Christianity, but they are of the same ilk.

[Doctor Stochastic]

That's anti science "crowd" not "crowe"; I don't know if the view is shared by Crowe.

[edsheppa]

Algebra, for example, is based on eight unprovable axioms which are accepted on the basis of faith.

I see you don't know any more about mathematics than you do about science. In the first place, elementary algebra doesn't rely on only eight axioms as you can see here.

In the second, and more fundamentally, these rules are accepted as a matter, not of faith, but of *choice*. Other algebras make different choices.

But don't let not knowing even these simple things stop you from posting.

[unlearner]

" I also don't think Creationism is unscientific. I just think it is bad science."

At least you are expressing it in a more logical way here.

"But assumption of an intelligent designer is not one of the basic assumptions needed to reason logically."

You are still confusing the need for axiomatic faith with the particular axioms. You do not need to believe in the algebraic axiom of symmetric equality in order to think logically, but you do need to define what your axioms are in order to begin a logical framework.

Evolutionists have not done this to my knowledge. I have asked for it repeatedly and gotten nothing. It is unfair to engage in a debate without defining the terms.

"All sciences assume certain constants extend back in time. Yes perhap gravity has not always been constant, but as far as we know nothing can change the gravitational constant, in fact it is likely to cause problems with planet orbits if it had been significantly different in the past."

Whether it causes problems with planetary orbits is irrelevant (unless you mean to say that planetary orbits somehow prove that gravity has always been constant). The issue is what bearing it has on evolutionary theory since billions of years are so essential to this theory.

"The pattern of the fossil record is compatible with common descent against the odds - high odds."

Age measurements amount to massive finger pointing and circular reasoning. If a new archaeological discovery is made that does not fit within the parameters of evolutionary theory, the theory evolves (which is not unscientific in and of itself). The fossil record is interpreted by evolutionary theory rather than being the foundation of it. At what time in history was there less diversity of living things than today? And how do you know? What non-living time indicators exist that correspond to your historical arrangement of the complexity of living things? (We need to know this because if you are using other living things for time indicators you are engaging circular reasoning by referencing your own theory for a time indicator.) How do you know these nonliving things are the age you claim (without referencing your own theory)? What assumptions (either axioms or logical extensions of them) are made when estimating the geological changes that have occurred during Earth's history? How would possible cataclysmic events effect your model of predicted historical patterns and events? How are your predictions more reliable than the ability to predict future weather patterns?

The lack of a logical connection between more fundamental axioms implies that evolutionary theory itself is axiomatic. I cannot argue against a premise when there is none. This is what evolutionist hypocritically accuse creationists of.

We know for certain that time does not flow at the same rate when measured at different velocities. So when you claim the earth or universe is a certain age (always stated as fact) where is the measurement valid? What parts of the universe are older or younger? How much variation is there? .02%? 100,000%? If you admit that the universe did not always exist in its present form, what effect did the formation have on the time indicators we now use to measure the age of the universe and earth?

[unlearner]

"In the first place, elementary algebra doesn't rely on only eight axioms. In the second, and more fundamentally, these rules are accepted as a matter, not of faith, but of *choice*. "

Thanks for the correction. I forgot about two of them - I should have said ten. I only counted the five axioms of real numbers and the three of equality. Algebra is built upon ten axioms which are assumed.

Whether you want to call this faith or choice is a matter mainly of nomenclature. A mathematician can only prove that something is true by working back to a major axiom. What you call it does not change the nature of it. When people use math and other sciences to make predictions about the real world the axioms become matters of faith since you cannot actually choose what is real.

[RadioAstronomer]

But his opinion is shared by many of the anti-science crowe. Of course, some think science is out to disprove Scientology or Islam rather than Christianity, but they are of the same ilk.

You nailed it right on the head.

[RadioAstronomer]

LOL! :-)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Thanks. That worked.

[Old Professer]

Physicists study the How of things; Philosophers study the Why of things; when the Physicists win, it will because there is no Why, no purpose to life at all.

[BedRock]

Darwin at least had the openness of mind and the humbleness to give credit to a superior "Creator" of his proposed TOE.

He stated that whether life began as two or one he wasn't sure, but the result of his TOE had produced things amazingly beautiful to the human eye. (paraphrased, not an actual quote)

I give Darwin more respect as a scientist than I do most of the so-called "ones in the know" who attempt to post to articles concerning the TOE on FR today.

At least he was willing to debate and consider all things with an open mind.

[edsheppa]

I forgot about two of them - I should have said ten.

I give you a link that lists them and you still don't get it right. Are you too lazy to even click a link handed to you and make sure of your "facts?" You get to ten simply saying that both addition and multiplication are abelian groups. Then you still have to define ordering and subtraction and division and distribution and more.

Whether you want to call this faith or choice is a matter mainly of nomenclature.

Hardly, unless you're saying that faith is simply a matter of choice. I'd say there might be an argument for that proposition, but 1) it's hardly the common meaning of faith and 2) you're going to have a hard time convincing your fellow religious "choosers" of it.