Posted on 01/02/2006 4:14:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The mechanisms driving the process of evolution have always been subject to rigorous scientific debate. Growing in intensity and scope, this debate currently spans a broad range of disciplines including archaeology, biochemistry, computer modeling, genetics & development and philosophy.
A recent $2.8 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation to the Cambridge Templeton Consortium [link] is providing the resources for further investigation into this complex and fascinating area. The funds will support 18 new grant awards to scientists, social scientists and philosophers examining how complexity has emerged in biological systems.
Attracting 150 applications, the grant process has generated much interest from a wide range of disciplines. Unique in the interdisciplinary nature of their applicants, the Cambridge Consortium grants will encourage and enable high quality research that approaches the issue from many angles, and will also sponsor collaborative work by people from different academic specialties. All of the work will study how biological systems (molecular, cellular, social etc) become more complex as they evolve.
"This is clearly an emerging area of science, and we are pleased that these grants are specifically aimed at encouraging work that would not easily fall under the parameters of any other grant-awarding body," says Consortium Chairman, Professor Derek Burke.
Questions to be addressed by the projects include:
* Why are biologists so afraid of asking 'why' questions, when physicists do it all the time?Among the institutions receiving grants from the Cambridge Templeton Consortium are Duke University, Harvard University Medical School, University of California, San Francisco, University of Cambridge, UK, and Australian National University.* Can experiments using a digital evolutionary model answer why intelligence evolved, but artificial intelligence has been so hard to build?
* What lessons can rock art and material remains teach us about the development of human self-awareness?
* Can the geometric ordering of specific sheets of cells throw light on the questions currently being raised about design in nature?
* What principles allow individuals to develop social and colonial organizations?
The mission of the John Templeton Foundation is to pursue new insights at the boundary between theology and science through a rigorous, open-minded and empirically focused methodology, drawing together talented representatives from a wide spectrum of fields of expertise. Founded in 1987, the Foundation annually provides more than $60 million in funding on behalf of work in human sciences and character development, science and theology research, as well as free enterprise programs and awards worldwide. For more information about the Templeton Foundation, go to www.templeton.org [link.].
[Omitted some contact info, available at the original article.]
Great link. Thanks.
I've been saying ever since I read the Dover decision in its entirety, that this trial was ID's "Waterloo": it's all down hill from here for the ID movemvent.
I'm not sure that they are. I can think of plenty of questions in biology that can be framed in terms of "why": why do people go into shock, why is uracil not found in DNA, why are humans so hairless compared to other apes, why is left-handed sugar indigestible, etc. The problem with many "why" questions in biology is that the reasons are historically contingent, and there usually isn't enough existing information to reconstruct exactly what happened.
History is the same way. Why did the _____________ Empire collapse? If you're lucky, an archaeologist might point to climate, or natural disaster, or invasion, but if the reasons were "political mismanagement" or "lack of a male heir" or "people finally got fed up with the priestly class", you're probably never going to find out without a contemporary written record.
In history or biology, unobserved accidents play a central role. Physics is different: if something is a certain way, there's almost always a measurable, calculable principle behind it.
ID will eventually take its proper place in the Retirement Home for Obsolete Dogmas, that dismal residence where such fading idols as spirit-caused disease, Zeus-caused lightning, Apollo's chariot causing the day-night cycle, and other myths "explaining" natural aspects of the world now live out their dotage, reminiscing about the glory days.
Yes, but they can also just as well be reframed in terms of "how?" or "what?".
My impression is that they are after a different sort of "Why?" question, the type that presupposes a teleological explanation, a "purpose," to answer the "why?" question.
In that sense, I think neither physicist nor biologists pursue such questions, as they are outside the realm of science altogether. They instead are in the perview of theology and philosophy.
I have to honestly say the question puzzles me. Biologists ask 'why' questions all the time. All scientists answer questions as specifically as their access to the phenomena in question allows.
I suspect the question really means "Why have biologists been less able to unlock the functionality of their studied phenomena less specifically and thoroughly than physicists?" Biological systems are the most complex examples of physical organization known - IMO it's because biologists have the tougher job, in that regard. Exactly modeling every physical system of every living organism and the effect of every aspect of every gene on every cell in every organ (one DNA 'molecule' has more atoms than there are stars in our galaxy) simply can't be done.
What a lot of people don't seem to grasp is that this lack of thorough specificity on the most fundamental level does not imply total ignorance of biology. In many cases, biologists look for larger correlations between associated phenomena; they test their theories and make discoveries that work in repeated applications. The bottom line is that successful theories stand strong amidst an influx of new data; whether or not we know every minute detail of why the theory works is irrelevant as to whether or not it is true (though such details make for good future research). Biologists, just like physicists, are as specific in their conclusions as their data allows. (Pseudoscientific theories, in contrast, tend to lead research away from specific explanations toward inapplicable generalities.)
There is definitely an element from both within and without the educated 'elite' of the physical sciences (i.e. physics, engineering, etc.) that show disdain for biological research as an 'inexact' science, just because of the inherent limits on the systems they study. We even occasionally see mathematicians & engineers post on these threads with an implicit (or explicit) condescension towards the biological sciences; meanwhile, a great empire of advances in medicine, genetics and biochemistry continues to mount up and even affect our daily lives. Such people, though likely brilliant at what they do, approach science with the attitude of a race horse wearing peripheral blinders.
Hey!! That wasn't me no matter how much it looked like me.
I think this attitude largely comes from Freepers (and perhaps others) who are neither scientist nor engineer. Time and again we see posts claiming that physical theories are proven while biological theories are not. And posts claiming that physics and chemistry (though curiously not usually astronomy) are somehow more rigorous than sciences like biology and geology. Such posters usually resort to whining or obfuscation when asked to back up their beliefs. I haven't encountered any real-life physicists or chemists who claim that their sciences are more well-founded than biology, paleontology, archeology, etc.
Right. Wolfram and many others, some before him.
How complexity emerges from simple math is one of the great discoveries of the last half of the 20th century, aided by computers.
Natural intelligence is so hard to duplicate precisely because it IS evolved and NOT designed.
It may take a while. I've read that 30% of the American public believe in Astrology.
I may be wildly off in this, but I occasionally see hints that physicists -- and especially cosmologists -- sometimes regard any science that involves ooie-gooie wet things (chemistry, biology) as somehow inferior. It's a subjective hierarchy, not based on scientific rigor. Perhaps just my imagination. I thought it was definitely evident in the early days of Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion.
Have A Dream (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-23-05 09:33 AM Original message
Astrology: Having no planets in certain elements -- can feng shui help?
For example, my astrological chart has no planets in fire signs and only one planet in an air sign. (Water and earth are pretty even.)
What can a person in this situation do to remedy the imbalance? Maybe there's nothing, but I was wondering if certain feng shui principles could be applied. (I don't really mean the placement but rather just objects.) For example, a candle can be used in feng shui to help with fire, and wind chimes can be used for air.
I'm sure that I'm not the only one with this situation, so I think that others might also benefit from this discussion. What are your thoughts? If not feng shui, are there other ways to try to get more balance?
HahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahagasp for breathHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaha!
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.