Posted on 08/15/2005 7:01:06 PM PDT by gobucks
Project begins amid arguing over teaching evolution. Harvard University is launching a broad initiative to discover how life began, joining an ambitious scientific assault on age-old questions that are central to the debate over the theory of evolution.
The Harvard project, which is likely to start with about $1 million annually from the university, will bring together scientists from fields as disparate as astronomy and biology, to understand how life emerged from the chemical soup of early Earth, and how this might have happened on distant planets.
Known as the "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative," the project is still in its early stages, and fundraising has not begun, the scientists said.
But the university has promised the researchers several years of seed money and has asked the team to make much grander plans, including new faculty and a collection of multimillion-dollar facilities.
The initiative begins amid increasing controversy over the teaching of evolution, prompted by proponents of "intelligent design," who argue that even the most modest cell is too complex, too finely tuned, to have come about without unseen intelligence.
President Bush recently said intelligent design should be discussed in schools, along with evolution. Like intelligent design, the Harvard project begins with awe at the nature of life, and with an admission that, almost 150 years after Charles Darwin outlined his theory of evolution in the Origin of Species, scientists cannot explain how the process began.
Now, encouraged by a confluence of scientific advances — such as the discovery of water on Mars and an increased understanding of the chemistry of early Earth — the Harvard scientists hope to help change that.
"We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
The theory of evolution has been both fascinating and religiously charged since its very beginnings, because it speaks directly to the place of people in the natural order. In another era, the idea that humans are the close cousins of apes was seen as preposterous.
Today's research of origins focuses on questions that seem as strange as the study of "ape men" once did: How can life arise from nonlife? How easy is it for this to happen? And does the universe teem with life, or is Earth a solitary island?
At Harvard, the origins of life initiative is part of a dramatic rethinking of how to conduct scientific research.
Many of science's most interesting questions are emerging in the boundaries between traditional disciplines such as physics, chemistry, and biology, yet universities are largely organized by those disciplines. Harvard's president, Lawrence Summers, is a proponent of the view that universities must develop new structures to encourage interdisciplinary science. And new science laboratories based on this are at the center of the plans for a sprawling new campus.
The Harvard origins initiative is on a short list of projects being considered for this campus, along with the widely discussed Harvard Stem Cell Institute, which aspires to bring together biologists, chemists, doctors, and others.
I think the keyword is "logical" events. Being that they are looking for a sequence of _logical_ events seems to indicate that they are not looking for a sequence of _physical_ events. That leaves a lot of wiggle room. At what point can you claim you've figured out the "logical" sequence?
Now, I could be wrong because I'm a computer geek, not a working biologist. That's why I've pinged someone with a lot more experience in this than me when it comes to reading these things.
That's why Evolutionists have substituted vast amounts of time for magic. A person can't touch the moon by jumping up with an outstretched finger over and over again; but, evos think we're all dumb enough to buy the notion that if we allow for millions and millions of years worth of jumping up, someone's finger may touch. Time is the magic and god of evolution. Evos aren't looking for the answer on origins, they're looking for an alternative to God. And that is why they state openly that they want an answer that excludes God - as though God would be unscientific.. lol.
Science is a search for truth. Evos beg off that concept; but, if something can be known for certain and is observeable, it is truth. Even if it can't be aptly mechanically explained, step by step, it is truth.
Titanic sank after striking an iceberg. The position where she came to rest was unknown for years. And the exact nature of the damage to her was unknown for years. Specificity was no constraint to authoring countless books on the subject. Nor was it a constraint on official and unofficial commentary with regard to the subject. Not knowing something is not a crime. Knowing something and dealing with it in a dishonest manner is something of a criminal act IMO. And thusly we end up with terms like "Paraconformity" (unrelated to the titanic example for those from rio linda). The point is, that truth is the end goal - what we can know. Nobody would fault science for not knowing how God specifically does something. But the egos involved are insulted that something might be smarter than them and that they might have to answer to him in the end.
God isn't excluded because miracles can't be explained. If they could be explained, they wouldn't be miracles. And people do accept miracles as truth. Evos, on the other hand, can't accept "truth" for truth if it means admitting their theory is wrong. So, it's a paraconformity and we won't discuss it. Label it and play stupid. Bias must be maintained while acting as though there is none. And as with the MSM, the EVO community seems the only one that isn't aware there is bias. It's so absurd as to be funny.. or is that so funny as to be absurd? Evolution isn't science.. it's a religion. It doesn't belong in the classroom and it will leave the classroom. This latest report is the beginning of the end for them. Evos have begged off the origins issue at every turn because it is "outside of science". They beg off of miracles for the same reason. So now science is dealing with something "outside of the realm of science" because they see the indians coming over the uneven grounds of little bighorn.. They may at least make a pretense of it; but, it won't help. There is no evidence for Evolution. Evolution is counter to common sense. And it is under assault on all levels by the facts eg the truth about the Grand Canyon etc. The grand charade is heading for the ash heap of history.
I have no problem with the evolutionists positing their ideas as a working assumption, i.e. as a possible solution. But they move from science to faith when they insist that it must be a necessary solution.
If it turns out that no material cause can be found, so be it ...
This is my point, there may be a point where the natural sciences should simply respond "we do not know."
Indeed, and it is "faith" as they define it: a blind intellectual leap that flies in the face of facts and is therefore anti-science.
And this is where natural evolution breaks down, they cannot go from step 3 to step 4 because of the length of time required. Thus it is improper to speak of natural evolution as a theory, it should more correctly be described as an hypothesis. If the evolutionists would present their ideas as such there would be no problem. It is when they insist that it is fact that they go beyond proper science and are making a creedal statement.
Ah, but it's not really a solution at all, merely a tool to facilitate investigation. The difference is the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The philosophical naturalist says "The material is all that there is." The methodological naturalist says "We will behave as though the material is all there is."
Science is about investigating the material world, and for that, methodological naturalism - the assumption that material events have material causes - is an absolute prerequisite for science, because science cannot proceed into the realm of the non-material. That's not what it's for, and not what it's about - science is about the material world, and must necessarily restrict itself to investigating the material world thus. It does not declare that the material is all that there is or all that there must be, it only says "the material is all we will investigate".
This is my point, there may be a point where the natural sciences should simply respond "we do not know."
But never a point where one should stop looking - you may have to settle for "we do not know...yet". ;)
I would say that the same standard needs to be applied to the natural evolutionists. Despite claims to the contrary, they have as of yet not "shown us how it would work."
I am not claiming that the natural sciences can ever prove the supernatural, this is properly outside their competence. But recognizing the limits of the natural sciences we should admit that there are other sources of knowledge.
My thinking cap is on quite securely. But in the search for the truth why should we insist that the origin of life must be constrained to natural laws? Perhaps this is a subject beyond the scope of the natural sciences.
Here is the true nature of the debate. It is not a question of faith versus reason but of epistemology. I will agree with you that on the research level a naturalistic assumption is necessary. But it is when the theories are presented in the classroom as fact and not as a working hypothesis that we get into trouble.
We have multiple eyewitnesses to UFOs, Bigfoot, LochNess Monster, lots of stuff. They've even written books. It doesn't prove it's true.
We have multiple eyewitnesses to the assassination of Caesar. Perhaps we can discount this too.
Agreed, although I prefer the term Natural Science. But let us also admit the limits of science. Good science should have no problem with stating that the origin of life and the origin of the species might beyond the limits of science.
THIS is a monumental waste of money because their findings will go unread due to the fact that everyone knows Creationists can't read.
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.