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.
placemarker
Again, it's not insisting that there must be a natural cause, it is merely a recognition that non-material causes are beyond the scope of science. Such theories are not illegitimate in every conceivable sense of the word, but they are illegitimate for the purposes of science.
First, this would be true if the theory of natural evolution were compelling, which it is not.
Sure it is. You don't get consensus otherwise, and that's what you've got. Anyway, if there's some aspect you feel is inadequate, we can always discuss specifics.
Until a workable mechanism is shown it is merely speculation.
There is a workable mechanism, of course - natural selection is the mechanism which drives evolution.
You will allow the theory of evolution to be displaced only if another scientific theory can be presented.
I really don't think it's too much to ask that scientific theories are, well, scientific. The criteria for being a part of science are the same for everyone, in every field - if you wish to redefine those standards for ID theory or some other variety of creationism, then the burden is rightly on you to show how science is advanced by doing so. Plus, it's not enough to simply have a scientific alternative, you have to have a better scientific alternative. Then the biology classrooms of the nation will be yours, but not until then.
At the same time you are ruling out any non-naturalistic theory as being "unscientific" on the face of it.
Yep. You can have any non-naturalistic theory you like, but you don't get to call it "science" unless it meets the standard for being science. Part of that standard is no elves, fairies, witches, unicorns or big invisible guys in the sky who put their thumbs on the cosmic scales - in short, no non-material entities. Theories that invoke such things can be lots of things, but science isn't one of them. Sorry.
You talk alot but it is all gibberish. The fact is that God is not constrained by the laws of nature, hence, it is impossible to determine supernatural intervention using science which is bound by the laws of nature. It doesn't matter if you are pro or con on evolution, the fact is that science can never prove or disprove the existence of God.
"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."
Now you are thinking. If you believe that God is not constrained by natural laws, then you also must believe that science is incapable of proving or disproving the actions of God. It doesn't mean that science is useless or that God is unknowable, only that science can't prove or disprove that God exists. You know God from the Word.
Then the natural sciences should admit the possibility that the origin of life and the origin of the species may be beyond their scope.
Sure it is. You don't get consensus otherwise, and that's what you've got.
Consensus cannot be compelled and that is what the promoters of natural evolution are trying to do. Every scientific theory which has been overturned has first been attacked by a minority, if not by a lone individual. Proper science should not be "I am right now shut up," but rather "let the debate begin." If the evidence for natural evolution is so compelling, why are you afraid of an open debate.
There is a workable mechanism, of course - natural selection is the mechanism which drives evolution.
Again we need to make a distinction, this time between micro-evolution (within one species) and macro-evolution (the formation of a new species). No one will dispute the process of micro-evolution, either natural or through artificial breeding. The various breeds of dogs is proof of that. But in the end, no matter how much you breed dogs, you will always end up with a dog.
The problem is when you take these observations and try to use them to explain macro-evolution. There has yet to be shown a mechanism that will explain how random genetic mutations will produce a new species. This become especially apparent when some of the mutation require multiple and simultaneous genetic mutations or when the intermediate forms are useless and do not enhance an organisms chances of survival.
I really don't think it's too much to ask that scientific theories are, well, scientific.
Part of the problem is that the natural sciences have appropriated to themselves the term scientific. The natural sciences are only a part of the knowledge of man. When the limits of the natural sciences have been met they need to be accompanied by the other areas of human knowledge. The natural sciences need to rediscover the humility to say "we do not know." This does not mean that they should stop trying to discover natural explanations but that they should not presume that there must be one.
Theories that invoke such things can be lots of things, but science isn't one of them. Sorry.
Such theories that go beyond what the natural sciences can properly explain (such as at present the origin of life and the origin of the species) are also not science. The statement that "there must be a natural explanation" is not scientific but only a creedal statement of belief.
This is what I have been saying all along. I have never said that the natural science could prove a divine origin of life or of the origin of species. But they could show that as of yet there is no known natural cause. The natural sciences can seek to find a natural cause but must admit the possibility that one does not exist. Science does not equal naturalism.
Perhaps you have some affirmative evidence - i.e., something beyond "you can't disprove it!" - to bring to the table for such a thing?
Take as much time as you like ;)
Consensus cannot be compelled and that is what the promoters of natural evolution are trying to do.
You have the wrong sort of consensus in mind - not consensus among the public, but among professional scientists, where the question of evolution has long been settled. Sorry again, but there it is - creationism is not considered a serious alternative among scientists.
Proper science should not be "I am right now shut up," but rather "let the debate begin."
You're rather late to the party. As much as I hate to say it, that debate has begun, occurred, and ended among scientists. ID brings nothing new at all to the table, and so there's precious little reason to pretend it's a live controversy - among scientists, it isn't, the school boards of the country notwithstanding.
Again we need to make a distinction, this time between micro-evolution (within one species) and macro-evolution (the formation of a new species).
We don't need to do any such thing - that distinction is a wholly artificial construct invented not by scientists and evolutionary biologists, but by creationists who have retreated from the castle walls and into the keep. There is absolutely no dividing line between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" - in fact, those terms are not generally used by professional evolutionary biologists - except for the timeframe involved, and, not to be cynical, in the convenience factor for creationists. When denying the obvious becomes untenable, it is labeled "microevolution", and "nobody denies that". When the supposed immutability of species looks to be in danger, it is labeled "macroevolution" and denied with great vigor.
Part of the problem is that the natural sciences have appropriated to themselves the term scientific.
So basically, you want to join the club called "science", but you don't want to follow the rules set out for members. And who are you?
The natural sciences need to rediscover the humility to say "we do not know."
I see that all the time. In fact, it's by exploring the areas where the answer is currently "I (we) don't know" that glory is gained in science - you can't do that if you don't admit what you don't know, and so there is a very strong disincentive to pretend that everything is known and understood.
This does not mean that they should stop trying to discover natural explanations but that they should not presume that there must be one.
Really, now - there is no presumption that there must be a natural explanation, only that natural explanations are what science concerns itself with. I'm not sure how I can say it any other way, and since this is the third time I've said it, I'm not sure that this is leading anywhere productive.
You have the wrong sort of consensus in mind - not consensus among the public, but among professional scientists, where the question of evolution has long been settled. Sorry again, but there it is - creationism is not considered a serious alternative among scientists.
And I thought that we lived in a democracy where the people got to choose what was taught in the schools. Still there is a growing body of scientists who are challenging evolution.
As much as I hate to say it, that debate has begun, occurred, and ended among scientists.
Then they are not true scientists. Among serious scientists the debate about unproven theories is never ended.
There is absolutely no dividing line between "microevolution" and "macroevolution"...
And I thought that you understood the concept of species. For the record: Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. Thus the important and real distinction between micro and macro-evolution. Of course is makes things easier to pretend that there is no real distinction; easier but dishonest.
So basically, you want to join the club called "science", but you don't want to follow the rules set out for members.
Nor do you seem to have knowledge with the history of science. Historically what we today call science was known as natural philosophy (the terms philosophy and science being use interchangeably) and was recognized as only one branch of science along with moral philosophy, metaphysics and theology. It is only a late development where the natural sciences arrogated to themselves the claim to be the only true science.
I see that [science saying "we do not know"] all the time.
Really, now - there is no presumption that there must be a natural explanation, only that natural explanations are what science concerns itself with.
Then you should have no problem with saying "We do not know IF the origin of life or the origin of species has a natural cause."
Everything material falls under the purview of science, again by definition. Living things are material entities, science looks for material causes. If the cause is, in fact, non-material, then science won't find it. Either way, that's what science does - investigate the material world by looking at material causes and effects. It is what it is, which does not happen to be contingent upon your acceptance.
And I thought that we lived in a democracy where the people got to choose what was taught in the schools.
Vote the Panem et Circenses ticket if you like. I merely point out that just because you vote it into the classroom, that does not necessarily make it science. School boards may be empowered to define what a "science class" is, but they are not empowered to define what science is.
If you really want to join that club and legitimately call what you do "science", then you have to follow the rules. Otherwise, it's not science. Creationists appear to me to want the respect and legitimacy afforded to science, but without all the hard work of earning it. Sorry, no sale - that legitimacy is earned, not given, and you cannot vote it unto yourself.
Still there is a growing body of scientists who are challenging evolution.
The same six or seven guys get headlines year after year, and it's supposed to constitute a trend suddenly. If you listened to the critics, the theory has been on the verge of collapse for, oh, about a hundred and fifty years now. Pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical.
Among serious scientists the debate about unproven theories is never ended.
What debate? Debate over evolution and what alternative theory? Unless you have an alternative, there can be no "debate". Not to mention that science doesn't deal in proof, merely the weight of the evidence and a little induction.
Of course is makes things easier to pretend that there is no real distinction; easier but dishonest.
If you can cite, oh, three mainstream evolutionary biologists who draw a qualitative distinction between "micro" and "macro", I'll eat my hat.
You've been sold a bill of goods. If you want to argue against the theory of evolution, I suggest starting with the theory of evolution, and not the caricatures of creationist fantasy.
Historically what we today call science was known as natural philosophy...
Who cares? If you wish to relive the glory days of Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber, be my guest, but these days, "science" has, shall we say, evolved a bit. Science is science, philosophy is philosophy, and I daresay you'll find precious few philosophers who call what they do "science" any more.
Then you should have no problem with saying "We do not know IF the origin of life or the origin of species has a natural cause."
The second part is false, unfortunately. The great weight of the evidence is clear that the origin of species and the diversity of life on earth is the result of material causes. Your mileage may vary, I suppose - I can show you the mountain, but I can't make you believe that it's really there.
Click here for the names of over 400 scientists who oppose Darwinism. Don't wait too long, the list is growing.
Correct, mostly. It is lineage-specific, but it also includes gorillas, not just the chimpanzee family.
so_real makes a number of errors in his commentary about this topic in general, and the linked paper in particular:
[so_real:] I understand that you made a quick summary for the sake of brevity in your post, but I think you are jumping the gun a little bit drawing conclusions from retroviral insertion points -- at least at this time.
Not at all. The DNA evidence which allows the reconstruction of evolutionary lineages is extremely strong, and allows multiple independent cross-checks. Even the paper which so_real himself links makes clear that the molecular evidence is strong, vast, and unlikely to be found wrong at this point, as for example when it writes:
This seems unlikely in light of the extensive molecular evolutionary data that have been collected over the last few years [5,25] that clearly place orangutan as the outgroup species to the human–chimpanzee–gorilla clade and Old World monkeys as an outgroup to the human/ape lineage.It's also clear that contrary to so_real's implication, the authors of this study do not feel that their own results challenge the validity or findings of the existing evidence.
[so_real:] You are making assumptions that the source viruses do not assert an insertion point bias,
No, he is not making such an assumption, and neither do the researchers who use endogenous retroviruses (and other forms of DNA evidence) to uncover evolutionary relationships.
[so_real:] that the source viruses endogenous markers do not wane and cannot be re-introduced exogenously,
No one makes this assumption either. Clearly they can. But also as clearly, there are methods which allow us to determine if a particular case of a shared retrovirus is, or is not, the result of an ancestral event, or due to horizontal transmission. The paper which so_real himself links demonstrates several of those methods.
[so_real:] and that the source viruses are not capable of zoonosis or other cross-species transmission.
See above -- same answer. The results of such events can be distinguished from ancestral events.
[so_real:] Without these assumptions, there is no guarantee that the "critters ... will be related".
No such assumptions are made, so your conclusion is faulty. Instead, such potentially confounding cases are recognized by their characteristic features, and are excluded from phylogenetic analyses. That's what this paper *does* -- employs methods which distinguish the PTERV retroviral cases from ancestral retroviruses. How could you link the paper and not see that it already answers your potential objections?
[so_real:] Here is an interesting study that speaks to some of these issues, if you are interested. Note that this is not a creationist or ID'ist study -- it speaks only to a better understanding of evolution and raises questions regarding the validity of those assumptions from an evolutionist point of view.
...and it only *confirms* that non-ancestral retroviruses (such as the one examined by the paper) can indeed be distinguished, via several different characteristics, from ancestral cases.
[so_real:] The bottom line is that the jury is still out on what information can be inferred from retroviral insertions within genomes.
No, the "bottom line" is that non-ancestral retroviruses can and are distinguished from ancestral retroviruses, and that the inferrences reached via examination of endogenous retroviruses are still valid, and not subject to the kind of undetected error which you assert.
We are still in the data collection phase and I'd not hasten to insult a dissenting interpretation of that data until more is known.
We are *well* beyond the "data collection phase", and it is perfectly appropriate to laugh at someone who makes such *enormously* ignorant and incorrect claims as:
[Petrosius:]These are all statements that show an absolute and complete ignorance of the subject (as well as an arrogance which allows one to "lecture" on a topic without even the most elementary knowledge of it).
"naturalistic evolution itself is untestable""... it is but mere speculation."
"The genome project can only tell you what the genes do today. It cannot tell you how they became so arranged."
"Morphology only show [sic] similarity in design, not how that similarity came about."
"...natural evolution is untestable until you can demonstrate a test that will repoduce the creation of a new species."
What really earns extra helpings of scorn, however, is the hilarious assertion that, despite these clear expressions of near total ignorance, "I know more about the the subject than you think."
No, actually, he doesn't. He doesn't even know enough to realize how very little he knows about it.
This is, unfortunately, pretty typical of anti-evolution creationists.
Or a good Hindu, Buddhist, Navajo, Mayan...etc, etc...
Do you really want to turn this into a numbers argument?
Click here for the names of over 400 scientists who oppose Darwinism. Don't wait too long, the list is growing.
Congratulations, you fell for the false propaganda!! How proud you must be.
No, actually, that's not what those 400 folks (not all of them scientists) actually agreed to. Thanks for playing, and for spreading yet more creationist lies.
Come back when you acquire a clue of some sort.
Here's a quick rebuttal to your nonsense:
To start with the last point first, the Discovery Institute does not list "hundreds of scientists who now regard [Darwinism] as in intellectually bankrupt theory." What it has is a list of hundreds of people, not all scientists (and most of the scientists are not in fields relevant to evolutionary theory) who agree that "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Charles Darwin (who thought natural selection was the principle but not sole mechanism of evolution) could have signed that statement. Richard Dawkins could have signed it (if he didn't suspect the motives of the people gathering signatures); after all, like any modern biologist he's heard of genetic drift. The statement does not say that "Darwinism" is "intellectually bankrupt," or that humans do not share ancestry with monkeys (and mushrooms), or that the causes of evolution are "supernatural" or require intelligent guidance, or that mutation and natural selection do not, after all, account for a very great deal of the complexity of life. There are signers of the statement who hold to any or all of these positions, but it would hardly be reasonable to infer either that all the signers subscribe to any of them, or that those who do have scientific reasons for rejecting these aspects of evolutionary theory.Also see:
Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License. Debunks a bogus list of "doubters."And from a previous exchange concerning this same list:
Project Steve. Nat'l Center for Science Education: the overwhelming number of genuine scientists supporting evolution.
Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations. Sixty statements, all supporting evolution.
[bondserv:] The 400 scientists have signed a refutation to Darwinian evolution.Could someone please explain to me why the vast majority of anti-evolution creationists don't seem to be capable of basic reading comprehension?[Ichneumon:] No they haven't. Why are you lying about what they actually signed?
[bondserv:] A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Just in case you are considering calling me a liar again,
[Ichneumon:] If you persist in asserting that this is actually "a refutation to Darwinian evolution" when it clearly is not, then yes, you're still a liar.
I have one question that will refute any argument you may try and pose. Would a Darwinist sign this document?
Yes. I'd sign it. (Or at least I fully agree with it -- I might be hesitant to actually sign it, since I'm aware that it is worded in a manner that deceitful creationists could dishonestly spin and purposely mislead the public with; as indeed they have.) A scientist is always skeptical of all paradigms, and careful examination of the evidence should always be encouraged.
Oops, it seems that your question which was supposed to "refute any argument I may try and pose" has just exploded in your face.
The point, which you seem to have enormous trouble grasping, is that skepticism and a willingness to carefully examine evidence is *NOT* the same thing as "refutation" of any position, as you falsely claim. You are posting falsehoods about what those scientists actually agreed to. Just as I said. I stand by that post 100%.
I have theories, none of which are especially flattering to the subjects thereof ;)
Your question is unnecessarily complicated. May I suggest:
Could someone please explain to me whythe vast majority of anti-evolution creationistssome people don't seem to be capable of basic reading comprehension?
I do not doubt that the majority of scientists support natural evolution. My post was just that there are many reputable scientists who do not.
My hope, Dr Liu, is that you will come to the realization that every "event" takes place by divine intervention.
25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
I stand by my statements that natural evolution is untestable. If there is any ignorance it is with the doctrinaire evolutionists who do not understand basic logic and assume that the limitations inherent in the methodology of the natural sciences demands that the truth can only accept natural causality. Present the theory of evolution (it might even be true) but have the humility and honesty to say that it is only a theory and that others have serious and legitimate objections to it.
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.