Posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:13 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
The half-century campaign to eradicate any vestige of religion from public life has run its course. The backlash from a nation fed up with the A.C.L.U. kicking crèches out of municipal Christmas displays has created a new balance. State-supported universities may subsidize the activities of student religious groups. Monuments inscribed with the Ten Commandments are permitted on government grounds. The Federal Government is engaged in a major antipoverty initiative that gives money to churches. Religion is back out of the closet.
But nothing could do more to undermine this most salutary restoration than the new and gratuitous attempts to invade science, and most particularly evolution, with religion. Have we learned nothing? In Kansas, conservative school-board members are attempting to rewrite statewide standards for teaching evolution to make sure that creationism's modern stepchild, intelligent design, infiltrates the curriculum. Similar anti-Darwinian mandates are already in place in Ohio and are being fought over in 20 states. And then, as if to second the evangelical push for this tarted-up version of creationism, out of the blue appears a declaration from Christoph Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna, a man very close to the Pope, asserting that the supposed acceptance of evolution by John Paul II is mistaken. In fact, he says, the Roman Catholic Church rejects "neo-Darwinism" with the declaration that an "unguided evolutionary process--one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence--simply cannot exist."
Cannot? On what scientific evidence? Evolution is one of the most powerful and elegant theories in all of human science and the bedrock of all modern biology. Schönborn's proclamation that it cannot exist unguided--that it is driven by an intelligent designer pushing and pulling and planning and shaping the process along the way--is a perfectly legitimate statement of faith. If he and the Evangelicals just stopped there and asked that intelligent design be included in a religion curriculum, I would support them. The scandal is to teach this as science--to pretend, as does Schönborn, that his statement of faith is a defense of science. "The Catholic Church," he says, "will again defend human reason" against "scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of 'chance and necessity,'" which "are not scientific at all." Well, if you believe that science is reason and that reason begins with recognizing the existence of an immanent providence, then this is science. But, of course, it is not. This is faith disguised as science. Science begins not with first principles but with observation and experimentation.
In this slippery slide from "reason" to science, Schönborn is a direct descendant of the early 17th century Dutch clergyman and astronomer David Fabricius, who could not accept Johannes Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. Why? Because the circle is so pure and perfect that reason must reject anything less. "With your ellipse," Fabricius wrote Kepler, "you abolish the circularity and uniformity of the motions, which appears to me increasingly absurd the more profoundly I think about it." No matter that, using Tycho Brahe's most exhaustive astronomical observations in history, Kepler had empirically demonstrated that the planets orbit elliptically.
This conflict between faith and science had mercifully abated over the past four centuries as each grew to permit the other its own independent sphere. What we are witnessing now is a frontier violation by the forces of religion. This new attack claims that because there are gaps in evolution, they therefore must be filled by a divine intelligent designer.
How many times do we have to rerun the Scopes "monkey trial"? There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton's universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein's revisions. There are gaps in Einstein's universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.
To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.
That you refuse to acknowledge the existence of such evidence does not mean that it doesn't exist.
I always consult my local weatherman for his opinion on matters of biology.
Pound sand, Dementio.
Transposing the numerator and adding it to the denominator results in 666.
One cannot escape the geometry...
In short, science cannot be rid of methodological naturalism, because that is what science is. When you begin seeking non-physical or supernatural explanations, you have entered the realm of mathematics or philosophy, and are no longer doing science.
It makes me quite sad that “methodological naturalism” is the pedigree by which some authenticate science. There would be no computers, no communications technology without the non-physical “mathematical theory of communications” – nor would we be successful in launching space programs without the non-physical “theory of relativity” – nor would we be able to make much progress at all without the physical laws and physical theories which are themselves both non-physical and universal..
It is frankly mind boggling to me that evolution biologists would doggedly demand “methodological naturalism” when the entire theory of evolution itself is a non-physical universal theory of a continuum – the “tree of life”, which does not exist as a corporeal in space/time. The evolution of life makes no sense without a theory of complexification - but by your rules, cellular automata and self-organizing complexity (and other such models) would be disqualifed as "science". Stuart Kauffman ought to just give up, he's not "doing" science according to such rules.
In short, "methodological naturalism" is not what science "is". That was a paradigm choice willfully made by the physical science community to limit the questions to naturalistic borders and to accept only naturalistic conclusions. So the answers they find are naturalistic, not mathematical etc. No surprise, it's the only place they looked. Worse, the questions were framed for exactly those kinds of answers.
IMHO, it diminishes the whole of science to engage in any investigation with arbitrary boundaries. If axioms and postulates are warranted for a particular investigation, then fine, identify them up front. But if not, don't close doors unnecessarily.
"Methodological naturalism" is relatively new. It didn't use to be this way and it is not this way in other cultures.
It's always been the way of science.
" There would be no computers, no communications technology without the non-physical “mathematical theory of communications” – nor would we be successful in launching space programs without the non-physical “theory of relativity” – nor would we be able to make much progress at all without the physical laws and physical theories which are themselves both non-physical and universal.."
All those nonphysical objects you talking about are supported by real objects, or the mechanics of science-methodological naturalism. The nonphysical, does not support the physical. It's always the other way around.
Not quite. They must be testable at least in principle. Whether or not we have the capability of testing it with current technology is irrelevant.
We seem to be disagreeing on the basic definition of what "science" is. Can you please define what "science" means in your usage of the term?
I am essentially equating science with empiricism. Mathematical physics, geometric physics, et. al, are 'science' to the extent that they generate testable hypotheses. If they do not generate testable hypotheses, then they are not 'physics' at all, but rather 'metaphysics'.
There would be no computers, no communications technology without the non-physical "mathematical theory of communications"
Please note, I am not disregarding mathematics. But mathematics qua mathematics is not science. It is a tool. It helps us make models, and we can study the math and the model to try to turn up unexpected possibilities that we can then subject to experiment. But the act of creating theoretical models is only one step of the process; we don't stop there.
The Higgs boson is a perfect case in point. The mathematics of the Standard Model suggests it should exist. Great! That means that the Standard Model has generated a testable hypothesis. But we don't rely on the math alone to 'prove' the Higgs's existence. Rather, we build a huge particle accelerator to empirically test the hypothesis. Pure thought can only take you so far; you still need to test your models against the real world.
without the non-physical "theory of relativity"
The theory of relativity is not non-physical. In fact, it leads to testable hypotheses for which experimental evidence has been accumulated. It is precisely its modeling of the real universe that makes it useful and its predictions testable.
It occurs to me that you are perhaps using "non-physical" in a Platonic sense. Sure, the Idea of the theory of relativity is 'non-physical', in the same way that the Idea of the number '1' is non-physical. Unfortunately, there are an infinite number of Ideas which do not conform to actual reality. Empiricism is the method we use to bridge the gap between Idea and Reality.
It is frankly mind boggling to me that evolution biologists would doggedly demand "methodological naturalism" when the entire theory of evolution itself is a non-physical universal theory of a continuum – the "tree of life", which does not exist as a corporeal in space/time.
You are making the assumption that 'methodological naturalism', in order to be consistent, must deny the existence of thought. I see no reason why this must be the case. The limitation of science to that which is testable is a 'game rule' of the scientific method. And we need not have a complete understanding of the nature of consciousness in order to do science.
That was a paradigm choice willfully made by the physical science community to limit the questions to naturalistic borders and to accept only naturalistic conclusions.
Again this comes back to your definition of 'science'. You want to broaden the definition to somehow encompass the non-physical and the supernatural. The problem is, the non-physical ("physical", here, encompassing everything within the physical universe: matter+energy+spacetime) and the supernatural cannot be tested. What you are seeking is a conflation of that which is testable with that which is not testable -- science plus metaphysics. What purpose does this serve? Metaphysics can stay in the philosophy department, where they can continue to debate fascinating but unanswerable questions. Science wants to find actual answers to answerable questions. Of the two, the scientific method has a much better track record of producing answers than does pure reason.
No surprise, it's the only place they looked
If they looked elsewhere, what sort of answers might they find? And how could the accuracy of those answers be verified?
Worse, the questions were framed for exactly those kinds of answers.
Of course, because the whole point is to ask answerable questions.
"Methodological naturalism" is relatively new.
It is as old as the scientific method. Really, it is the scientific method.
It didn't use to be this way and it is not this way in other cultures.
Those other times, and other cultures, have not been nearly as successful at answering questions about the universe. The ancient Greeks would have achieved a great deal more had it occurred to them to engage in more than observation and philosophy. Philosophizing bereft of any empirically established connection with reality leads to dead ends, because there is no way to determine which conclusions of pure reason are true.
I'll add that science has been taking over philosophy's turf for centuries, as that which was once examinable only by pure reason became testable. So you are getting your merger of science and philosophy, but perhaps not quite in the way you wish! ;o)
If the diameter is ten cubits, and it's round all about, and [if]its circumference is 30 cubits, then pi = 3.
There are two concentric circles, the diameter describes the outer circle, the circumference the inner circle. Right Wing Professor, please see post number 1651 (lots of pictures, too!)
"Dead" isn't necessarily the equivalent of "non-living."
Does a person have to agree with EVERYTHING another thinks or stands for, to agree with them on one point?
the word 'cells' was not used in the original.
So, you don't like the posts about PI, eh?
You'd rather believe the ever changing eye socket size fossils as a true lineage instead.
I guess that's your perogative.
Then you tell me: what IS the difference between those warm and cold bunnies?
and atheists??
You're welcome.
Let me ask you this question. Is it true that all living organisms use the same form of DNA comprised of the same bases and encoding the same 20 amino acids?
Most, yes. All, no.
If that is the case, it seems odd to me that after billions of years of evolution, some species would not use a DNA mechanism which would have evolved to be different than all the others.
Some do.
So why then have dinosaurs in the span of 400M years evolved into humans and at the same time DNA has not changed at all?
Well the DNA *sequences* have changed hugely. The DNA "mechanism" hasn't.
The reason it hasn't change a *lot* is because a major change in the DNA structure or transcription mechanism would disrupt some or all of the existing gene sequences in the DNA. It would be like suddenly swapping your computer's CPU from Intel to Mac, or vice versa. It would cause all your computer's programs to crash.
But more minor changes in the DNA "genetic code" can and have evolved. See:
Selective advantages created by codon ambiguity allowed for the evolution of an alternative genetic code in Candida spp.That article contains this excellent overview of the diversity of variants of the genetic code in its introduction:Abstract: Several species of the genus Candida decode the standard leucine CUG codon as serine. This and other deviations from the standard genetic code in both nuclear and mitochondrial genomes invalidate the notion that the genetic code is frozen and universal and prompt the questions 'why alternative genetic codes evolved and, more importantly, how can an organism survive a genetic code change?' To address these two questions, we have attempted to reconstruct the early stages of Candida albicans CUG reassignment in the closely related yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. These studies suggest that this genetic code change was driven by selection using a molecular mechanism that requires CUG ambiguity. Such codon ambiguity induced a significant decrease in fitness, indicating that CUG reassignment can only be selected if it introduces an evolutionary edge to counteract the negative impact of ambiguity. We have shown that CUG ambiguity induces the expression of a novel set of stress proteins and triggers the general stress response, which, in turn, creates a competitive edge under stress conditions. In addition, CUG ambiguity in S. cerevisiae induces the expression of a number of novel phenotypes that mimic the natural resistance to stress characteristic of C. albicans. The identification of an evolutionary advantage created by CUG ambiguity is the first experimental evidence for a genetic code change driven by selection and suggests a novel role for codon reassignment in the adaptation to new ecological niches.
During the last 20 years, a number of alterations to the standard genetic code have been found in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes. In prokaryotes, there are two types of genetic code changes, i.e. the reassignment of the UGA stop codon to tryptophan in Mycoplasma and Spiroplasma and the non-assignment of the ar-CGG codon in Mycoplasma and the arg-AGA and Ile-AUA codons in Micrococcus. In contrast, non-plant mitochondrial systems display a richer variety of genetic code changes, ranging from reassignment of the UGA stop codon to tryptophan and the Ile-AUA codon to methionine, which occur in vertebrates, some invertebrates and yeasts. Among all mitochondrial genetic code changes, the arg-AGA/G codons are particularly interesting in that they have different assignments in different organisms. For example, AGA/G codes for serine in arthropods, molluscs, nematodes and platyhelminths, and for glycine in echinoderms and translation termination in vertebrates (reviewed by Osawa, 1995). Some lower eukaryotes also have reassigned codons in their nuclear genetic code, which fall into two categories. That is, several fungal species of the genus Candida translate the standard leucine CUG codon as serine (Santos et al., 1997), and some ciliate species translate the standard UAG and UAA stop codons as glutamine (Horowitz and Gorovsky, 1985) and the UGA stop codon as cysteine (Meyer et al., 1991). The spectrum of genetic code alterations is increased further by the non-assignment of the arg-CGG codon in Mycoplasma capricolum and the arg-AGA and Ile-AUA codons in Micrococcus luteus (Oba et al., 1991; Kano et al., 1993), the use of alternative initiation codons in various nuclear and mitochondrial genomes (Hann et al., 1988; Pritchard et al., 1990) and by UGA recoding as selenocysteine in both prokaryotic (Zinoni et al., 1987) and eukaryotic selenoprotein mRNAs (Chambers et al., 1986). The unexpected finding that several organisms and organelles have evolved alternative genetic codes invalidates the notion that the genetic code is frozen and universal (Crick, 1968) and suggests that the evolution of alternative genetic codes is of physiological significance and may play an important role in the evolution of the species that experience them.Also:
Comparative evolutionary genomics unveils the molecular mechanism of reassignment of the CTG codon in Candida spp.There are also a lot of fascinating papers on the origins of the genetic code and DNA transcription mechanisms as well, if you'd like to see them.Driving change: the evolution of alternative genetic codes
How mitochondria redefine the code
Characterisation of a non-canonical genetic code in the oxymonad Streblomastix strix
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.