'Explore as much as we can': Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution & intelligent design

Charles Townes is the Nobel Prize Physics winner whose pioneering work led to the maser and later the laser.

The University of California, Berkeley interviewed him on his 90th birthday where they talked about evolution, intelligent design and the meaning of life.

BERKELEY – Religion and science, faith and empirical experiment: these terms would seem to have as little in common as a Baptist preacher and a Berkeley physicist. And yet, according to Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor in the Graduate School, they are united by similar goals: science seeks to discern the laws and order of our universe; religion, to understand the universe's purpose and meaning, and how humankind fits into both.

Where these areas intersect is territory that Townes has been exploring for many of his 89 years, and in March his insights were honored with the 2005 Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities. Worth about $1.5 million, the Templeton Prize recognizes those who, throughout their lives, have sought to advance ideas and/or institutions that will deepen the world's understanding of God and of spiritual realities.

Townes first wrote about the parallels between religion and science in IBM's Think magazine in 1966, two years after he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for his groundbreaking work in quantum electronics: in 1953, thanks in part to what Townes calls a "revelation" experienced on a park bench, he invented the maser (his acronym for Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission), which amplifies microwaves to produce an intense beam. By building on this work, he achieved similar amplification using visible light, resulting in the laser (whose name he also coined).

Even as his research interests have segued from microwave physics to astrophysics, Townes has continued to explore topics such as "Science, values, and beyond," in Synthesis of Science and Religion (1987), "On Science, and what it may suggest about us," in Theological Education (1988), and "Why are we here; where are we going?" in The International Community of Physics, Essays on Physics (1997).

Townes sat down one morning recently to discuss how these and other weighty questions have shaped his own life, and their role in current controversies over public education.

Q. If science and religion share a common purpose, why have their proponents tended to be at loggerheads throughout history?

Science and religion have had a long interaction: some of it has been good and some of it hasn't. As Western science grew, Newtonian mechanics had scientists thinking that everything is predictable, meaning there's no room for God — so-called determinism. Religious people didn't want to agree with that. Then Darwin came along, and they really didn't want to agree with what he was saying, because it seemed to negate the idea of a creator. So there was a real clash for a while between science and religions.

But science has been digging deeper and deeper, and as it has done so, particularly in the basic sciences like physics and astronomy, we have begun to understand more. We have found that the world is not deterministic: quantum mechanics has revolutionized physics by showing that things are not completely predictable. That doesn't mean that we've found just where God comes in, but we know now that things are not as predictable as we thought and that there are things we don't understand. For example, we don't know what some 95 percent of the matter in the universe is: we can't see it — it's neither atom nor molecule, apparently. We think we can prove it's there, we see its effect on gravity, but we don't know what and where it is, other than broadly scattered around the universe. And that's very strange.

So as science encounters mysteries, it is starting to recognize its limitations and become somewhat more open. There are still scientists who differ strongly with religion and vice versa. But I think people are being more open-minded about recognizing the limitations in our frame of understanding.

You've said "I believe there is no long-range question more important than the purpose and meaning of our lives and our universe." How have you attempted to answer that question?

Even as a youngster, you're usually taught that there's some purpose you'll try to do, how you are going to live. But that's a very localized thing, about what you want with your life. The broader question is, "What are humans all about in general, and what is this universe all about?" That comes as one tries to understand what is this beautiful world that we're in, that's so special: "Why has it come out this way? What is free will and why do we have it? What is a being? What is consciousness?" We can't even define consciousness. As one thinks about these broader problems, then one becomes more and more challenged by the question of what is the aim and purpose and meaning of this universe and of our lives.

Those aren't easy questions to answer, of course, but they're important and they're what religion is all about. I maintain that science is closely related to that, because science tries to understand how the universe is constructed and why it does what it does, including human life. If one understands the structure of the universe, maybe the purpose of man becomes a little clearer. I think maybe the best answer to that is that somehow, we humans were created somewhat in the likeness of God. We have free will. We have independence, we can do and create things, and that's amazing. And as we learn more and more — why, we become even more that way. What kind of a life will we build? That's what the universe is open about. The purpose of the universe, I think, is to see this develop and to allow humans the freedom to do the things that hopefully will work out well for them and for the rest of the world.

I'm a Protestant Christian, I would say a very progressive one. This has different meanings for different people. But I'm quite open minded and willing to consider all kinds of new ideas and to look at new things. At the same time it has a very deep meaning for me: I feel the presence of God. I feel it in my own life as a spirit that is somehow with me all the time.

You've described your inspiration for the maser as a moment of revelation, more spiritual than what we think of as inspiration. Do you believe that God takes such an active interest in humankind?

[The maser] was a new idea, a sudden visualization I had of what might be done to produce electromagnetic waves, so it's somewhat parallel to what we normally call revelation in religion. Whether the inspiration for the maser and the laser was God's gift to me is something one can argue about. The real question should be, where do brand-new human ideas come from anyway? To what extent does God help us? I think he's been helping me all along. I think he helps all of us — that there's a direction in our universe and it has been determined and is being determined. How? We don't know these things. There are many questions in both science and religion and we have to make our best judgment. But I think spirituality has a continuous effect on me and on other people.

That sounds like you agree with the "intelligent design" movement, the latest framing of creationism, which argues that the complexity of the universe proves it must have been created by a guiding force.

I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence — certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible's description of creation occurring over a week's time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn't know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it's just an analogy.

Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

I think it's very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent.

They don't have to negate each other, you're saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that's not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.

People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too. People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading.

That seems to come up when religion seeks to control or limit the scope of science. We're seeing that with the regulation of research into stem cells and cloning. Should there be areas of scientific inquiry that are off-limits due to a culture's prevailing religious principles?

My answer to that is, we should explore as much as we can. We should think about everything, try to explore everything, and question things. That's part of our human characteristic in nature that has made us so great and able to achieve so much. Of course there are problems if we do scientific experiments on people that involve killing them — that's a scientific experiment sure, but ethically it has problems. There are ethical issues with certain kinds of scientific experimentation. But outside of the ethical issues, I think we should try very hard to understand everything we can and to question things.

I think it's settling those ethical issues that's the problem. Who decides what differentiates a "person" from a collection of cells, for example?

That's very difficult. What is a person? We don't know. Where is this thing, me — where am I really in this body? Up here in the top of the head somewhere? What is personality? What is consciousness? We don't know. The same thing is true once the body is dead: where is this person? Is it still there? Has it gone somewhere else? If you don't know what it is, it's hard to say what it's doing next. We have to be open-minded about that. The best we can do is try to find ways of answering those questions.

Good luck is one, but also just having a good time. Some people say I work hard: I come in on Saturdays, and I work evenings both at my desk and in the lab. But I think I'm just having a good time doing physics and science. I have three telescopes down on Mt. Wilson; I was down there a couple nights last week. I've traveled a lot. On Sundays, my wife [of 64 years] and I usually go hiking. I'd say the secret has been being able to do things that I like, and keeping active.

'Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith is necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mind — in fact his own mind — has a good chance of understanding this order.'

-Charles Townes, writing in "The Convergence of Science and Religion," IBM's Think magazine, March-April 1966

A Nov. 18-21, 2004 New York Times/CBS News poll on American mores and attitudes, conducted with 885 U.S. adults, showed that a significant number of Americans believe that God created humankind. UC Berkeley's Office of Student Research asked the same question on its 2005 UC Undergraduate Experience Survey, results for which are still coming in. As of June 8, 2,057 students had responded.

"People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change."

I guess they're not. Course, without misrepresenting ID an evolutionist (theistic or otherwise) wouldn't have an argument.

The argument is not about whether or not 'change' occurs, that is given and it is a misrepresentation to pretend otherwise. The argument is about whether the 'change' that is observed can create a man out of an amoeba or whether it is limited e.g. to generating dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals, etc out of an original canine kind.

Was life created with an ability to adapt within and proceeding from separate biological groups or was the first cell created and everything proceeded from there? Naturalists would argue the second position while creationists would argue the first, from the same observed 'change'.

Clearly, what we observe is consistent with life that was created with an ability to adapt within and proceeding from separate biological groups and therefore consistent with ID.

Equally as clear is the fact that what is observed is not consistent with all life proceeding from a single life form. That is a 'fantastic postulate' as Mr. Towne notes and it is interesting that he seems to accept the 'fantastic postulate' where evolution is concerned, yet reject it where the universe is concerned.

"My answer to that is, we should explore as much as we can. We should think about everything, try to explore everything, and question things."

Just don't push the ID boundary forward so that it is consistent with Biblical teaching. That is unacceptable. /sarc

"..Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?
I think it's very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.
Some scientists argue that "well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right." Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that's why it has come out so specially. Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It's very clear that there is evolution, and it's important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they're both consistent.
They don't have to negate each other, you're saying. God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion, But that's not what the Christian fundamentalists are arguing should be taught in Kansas.
People who want to exclude evolution on the basis of intelligent design, I guess they're saying, "Everything is made at once and then nothing can change." But there's no reason the universe can't allow for changes and plan for them, too.

People who are anti-evolution are working very hard for some excuse to be against it. I think that whole argument is a stupid one. Maybe that's a bad word to use in public, but it's just a shame that the argument is coming up that way, because it's very misleading. .."

Yes, it IS.

Here's an excerpt from the "debate" this month linked below:

George Gilder: "Darwinism may be true, but it's ultimately trivial. It is not a "fundamental explanation for creation or the universe."

That was a non-sequitur. He's equating a "philosophy" (Scientism/Darwinism) with "the theory of evolution" which has nothing to do with the philosophy of "origins".

The whole debate was stupid and meaningless for that very same reason. They were talking about apples and oranges.

But is it Good for the Conservatives - Darwinism and its Discontents
The Weekly Standard ^ | 05/14/2007 | Andrew Ferguson Volume 012, Issue 33

Larry Arnhart, a political scientist from Northern Illinois University; John Derbyshire, an author and a blogger for National Review Online; John West, a political scientist formerly of Seattle Pacific University and now of the Discovery Institute; and his colleague at Discovery, George Gilder, the legendary author of Wealth and Poverty, Microcosm, The Spirit of Enterprise, and Life After Television. Moderator: Steven Hayward, the biographer of Ronald Reagan

For those that are interested, you can watch the entire panel discussion here. "Darwinism and Conservatism: Friends or Foes?"

More. :)

Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Roget’s Theosaurus and the Tickwttted Illusion of Sweet Fanny Adams
By Robert W.Godwin [Gagdad Bob] , Ph.D is a clinical psychologist whose interdisciplinary work has focused on the relationship between contemporary psychoanalysis, chaos theory, and quantum physics. http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/

Perhaps it’s as simple as Zero and One. Either you have a metaphysics of the One or you embrace the nihilism of the zilch, the nada, the bupkis...

Hmm, here’s an interesting little factoid. I was just looking up synonyms for zero in my thesaurus, and I see that the very first two categories are Existence and Nonexistence, followed, appropriately enough, by Substantiality and Insubstantiality, then Intrinsicality and Extrinsicality. Thus, the first three pages of the thesaurus tell us pretty much all we need to know about theology, metaphysics, and ontology.

For, it is written, in the beginning was 1. EXISTENCE, or being, essence, presence, substantiality, reality, actuality, factuality, authenticity, not a dream, the truth of the matter, what’s what, the nitty gritty, absolute, self-evident, inescapable, and indisputable fact, brass tacks, self-existence, uncreated being, noncontingent existence, aseity, and others.

How true, which is to say, correct, valid, sound, accurate, well-grounded, logical, veridical, inerrant, self-consistent, cogent, authoritative, uninvented, unadulterated, square, dead right, bang-on, straight-up-and-down, and honest-to-God, for Being implies Truth.

Indeied, In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was EXISTENCE. Or, you might say that In the Beginning God created BEING and NONBEING, or, to be precise, pulled BEING out of his own ASEITY, or beyond being.

What about the alternative, which is to say, 2. NONEXISTENCE? Let’s see, we have nonbeing, nothingness, emptiness, vacuity, “the intense inane” (Shelley), unreality, negation, negativity, zero, absence, goose egg, not a whit, not a hint, not a blessed one, just Sweet Fanny Adams. In short. “ain’t nobody here but us leftists.”

What are the implications of this philosophy of zero, this metaphysics of nonbeing? According to Roget, it is to not exist, to be absent or lacking, to be annihilated, destroyed, eradicated and wiped out, to vanish, to be no more and leave no trace, to disappear, evaporate, melt away, die out, pass out of the picture, peter out, perish, circle the drain, go kaput, and just plain die.

This is indeed the fate of the leftist. In fact, he admits as much. Why then are they such chronic whiners? If their absence is intrinsic, why do they complain about it so much? I guess that’s why. As we said yesterday, leftism is the attempt to use horizontal politics to fill a vertical hole of their own creation. They are self-inflicted victims of their own nothingness. Envy takes care the rest.

All because you never allowed yourself to exist by aligning yourself with the Real, the Absolute, and the Intrinsic. Rather, you made yourself nonexistent, unreal, imaginary, fanciful, unsubstantial, illusory, and without being. Which is to say, you made yourself. But nobody made you. .....”

“... What is “nothing,” anyway, and why are there people who believe in it? Schuon writes of nothingness that it is, “on the one hand, an intellectual notion and, on the other hand, a cosmic tendency; this notion of nothingness is identical with that of impossibility; that is to say, nothingness is total impossibility, whereas there do exist relative impossibilities, namely those which represent situations modifiable in principle.”

So true nothingness cannot really exist except in the minds of nihilists. Therefore, they know of what they speak, since they themselves are the absurd “possibility of nothing,” which is just one of the diverse possibilities of Something. The nihilist is just a self-unmade man, or man unmade, to be exact.

Schuon continues:

“The notion of ‘nothing’ is essentially a reference — obviously negative — to something possible or existent, otherwise it would be meaningless and even inconceivable. Indeed, ‘nothing’ indicates by definition the absence of something: it excludes one or many objects, or all objects, according to context; to speak of an intrinsic ‘nothingness,’ of a nothing in itself, without reference to the things which it excludes, would be a contradiction in terms. When a receptacle is filled and then emptied, there is a difference; now this difference is a reality, otherwise no one would ever complain about being robbed. If this ‘nothing’ were in itself a ‘nothingness’ — if it had no ‘referential’ character — there would be no difference between presence and absence, plenitude and vacuity, existence and inexistence; and every thief could argue that the ‘nothing’ he produced in someone’s purse does not exist; the word ‘nothing’ would be devoid of meaning just as the nothingness is devoid of content.... an intrinsic nothingness cannot concretely be opposed to anything or be affected by anything in any way.”

So EXISTENCE and NONEXISTENCE aren’t actually opposites. Rather, the one is real, the other entirely fanciful, an absurdity, an impossibility, a... never mind.

Similarly, as Will was saying the other day about the “ether,” or the spiritual substance of reality, in the absence of such a metaphysical category, the cosmos makes no sense at all.

For, “space, if it were an absolute emptiness — if it did not in practice coincide with ether — could not comprise distance and separation, for a nothingness added to another nothingness — if this were conceivable without absurdity — could not produce a distance.”

Now, back to the ZERO and the ONE. Schuon notes that “the difference between 1 and 2 is relative, but the difference between 1 and 0 can be termed absolute...” Which is to say, “A thing cannot exist half-way, either it exists or it does not exist; consequently, since there is something absolute about existence in relation to inexistence,” this speaks to “the whole miracle of creation.”

Or, put it this way: “When one, two or three out of four candles are extinguished, the difference in luminosity is relative; but when the last one is extinguished, the difference is total, for it is that between light and darkness. This is what allows negative expressions such as ‘the Void’ (Shunya), ‘not this, not this’ (neti neti), and other terms of the kind to be applied to pure Being, and a fortiori to Beyond-Being. All apophatic theology stems from this principle of terminology.”

Ah ha! So NOTHING does exist. In fact, it is not the negation of BEING, but the ABSOLUTE EXISTENCE of the God-beyond-being, who must exist — and if so, must coincide with the sovereign good.

“The idea of ‘being’ positively implies reality, and restrictively manifestation; we say ‘restrictively’ because manifestation or existence represents a ‘less’ or a limitation in relation to the Principle which is pure Being. In signifying reality, the idea of ‘being’ evokes ipso facto the ‘good’ and also the ‘more,’ hence quality and quantity; but above all it evokes ‘presence.’ As for the opposite idea of ‘nothingness,’ it implies first of all the ‘absence’ of being, or impossibility, and more relatively the absence of determinate things; it also implies, by derivation and by analogy, the phenomenon of ‘less’ and, in another respect, that of ‘evil.’ But this idea can also be applied, quite paradoxically, to the transcendent or principial order: from the standpoint of the manifested world — hence from the standpoint of existence in the restricted sense of the term — all that transcends this world and consequently is free from existential limitations, is ‘nothingness.’”

Which was the point of beginning — and ending — and beginning — the [book] with the word nothing. Not to signify negation, non-being, nothingness, ... or some other addle-pated hooey. Rather, this is the infinite gap between the first and last Word of existence, which is to say,

... nothing,
a formless void without mind or life,
a shadow spinning before the beginning over a silent static sea,
unlit altar of eternity, fathomless vortex of the Infinite Zero.
Darkest night, dreamless sleep:
Outside in. Spacetimematterenergy.
No beforeafter, nobodaddy, no mamafestation, nothing but neti.
One brahman deathless breathing breathless,
darkness visible the boundless all.
Unknown origin prior to time and space,
fount of all being, unborn thus undying,
beginning and end of all impossibility,
empty plenum and inexhaustible void.
Hello, noumena!

bttt

Hi Gourmet Dan! I guess you could say we have an "observer problem" here: different articulations of the same evidence, both of which may actually be "true" from the respective points of view of the observers who have constructed their "experiments" differently. Personally, I regard science and philosophy (and theology is the "queen of metaphysics") not as "mutually-exclusive," but as complementary.

Indeed, as the great psychologist/philosopher Willam James -- who was keenly interested in evolution issues and quotes Darwin extensively in his magisterial classic of psychology -- wrote, "metaphysics means nothing but an unusually obstinate effort to think clearly." [The Principles of Psychology, originally published 1890]

Darwinists are fond of reminding us that evolution theory is not an origin of life theory. Granted, this is true. There's another problem it doesn't address: consciousness; and actually this is a problem that seems to be related to origin of life speculations. Although Darwinism isn't an origin of life theory, it may well be that the issue of the origin of consciousness is ineluctibly bound up with the same origin as life itself.

James treats of consciousness in this classical work, and lays out the problems as he sees them. In the chapter "The Mind-Stuff Theory," James said:

The point which as evolutionists we are bound to hold fast to is that all the new forms of being that make their appearance are really nothing more than results of the redistribution of the original and unchanging materials. The self-same atoms which, chaotically dispersed, made the nebula, now, jammed and temporarily caught in peculiar positions, form our brains; and the "evolution" of the brains, if understood, would be simply the account of how the atoms came to be caught and jammed. In this story no new natures, no factors not present at the beginning, are introduced at any later stage.
But with the dawn of consciousness an entirely new nature seems to slip in, something whereof the potency was not given in the mere atoms of the original chaos.

In the case of consciousness, the "potency" upon which evolution "acts" is not there at the origin, whatever the origin may have been. So how to account for consciousness? How and when did it sneak in?

Some schools of evolutionary psychology have attempted to introduce a theory of consciousness based on discrete cell intelligence; thus consciousness is to be understood as the composite of a congeries of "smart" cells which comprise the physical brain. On this view, consciousness is an epiphenomenon of physical brain activity which has no independent causal power of its own.

The theory in question [i.e., Darwin's evolutionary theory], therefore, if radically carried out, must set up for its elementary and irreducible psycho-physic couple, not the cell and its consciousness, but the primordial and eternal atom and its consciousness.

But why stop there? Just as cells are composites of atoms, so are atoms composites of nuclei and electrons. Electrons appear to be indivisible; but protons and neutrons which make up the nucleus are themselves composites of even smaller parts, the subatomic particles (the list of which seems still to be growing). So a "cell theory" of consciousness doesn't rest on ultimate grounds. Though it is certainly convenient for science to employ it; it "quantizes" consciousness, which helps make it tractible in scientific applications.

But James strongly argues that in the mind/brain relation, the entire consciousness is "indivisible" -- not "quantizeable" -- and coextensive with the entire current brain state, not just individual brains cells or any combination of them.

I dunno. To me it seems that saying consciousness is the ultimate product of primordial cells as it expresses via evolution is just to say we aren't going to deal with consciousness; because it, like the origin of life, is just too difficult a problem.

James wraps up this chapter with an observation: "...nature in her unfathomable designs has mixed us of clay and flame, of brain and mind, ... the two things hang indubitably together and determine each other's being, but how or why, no mortal may ever know."

It appears that Charles Townes would not be scandalized by such a view.

Anyhoot, I still say that Darwinist evolution theory is "incomplete." This drives my Darwinist friends a little nutz, 'cause they just don't see it that way. But to me, the theory has got to be incomplete if, as a life science, it knows nothing about the origin of life and consciousness....

And my lawnmower doesn't cook breakfast, so its incomplete?

Coyoteman, we don't ask our lawnmowers to provide an account of the evolution of life (er, species is the standard reductionist term).

If something "evolves," it must be evolving from something, and probably towards something. My conjecture is, that "something" contains (at its origin) the specification of evolutionary potentialities and the context of their development (materials and laws). Just the word "evolve" implies a rational, not a haphazard process. For something to be "rational," it must have a "limit" somewhere. It can't be pure chaos and be "rational": Our universe appears to be lawfully ordered. But a chaos cannot order itself.

Many Darwinists I know seem to think a doctrine can be understood as "equivalent" to natural processes. If you have the right doctrine, you can just squeeze all of nature into it, and it will make perfect sense.

Metaphysics, which as James suggests is about "thinking clearly," enables us to see that we are dealing, however, with two completely different categories in such a situation: articulations in language and articulations in the natural world -- they are not equivalent; no "A = A" obtains here.

This might seem like perfect psychobabble to you. If so, I'm really sorry for that. (Mainly I'm just recapitulating Aristotle here.) It seems to me, the character of evolutionary development may very well depend in some way on the conditions of its origin. It seems to me a "life science" cannot forever dodge this problem.

Darwin's theory is not a theory about the origin of life (or consciousness). I accept that. Though you'd think biology in general would want to come to grips with origins at some point.

At the same time, I notice many people these days making Darwinist evolution theory the linchpin of an entire cosmology that does speculate about the origins of life.... On my view FWIW this is an illegitimate translation from science into fields where it is not appropriate.

Be that as it may, to say that I do not regard Darwin's theory as "complete" should hardly be objectionable. It is the job of science to constantly prepare to find itself in a situation where its "best" theory is overcome by new insights and developments. There have been two earth-shattering revolutions in the physical sciences within the past 100 years; but Darwinism just goes along "unevolved" as it were, as if none of the new physical discoveries are relevant to it.

Don't forget, Darwinist theory is just that: a theory. It is not a law of nature. So it seems to me it is perfectly appropriate to question perceived shortcomings, if only to make our understanding of the relevant problems better and stronger. Especially since as science, Darwinist theory is a tad peculiar in that it is not premised on direct observation and replicable experiments. It is historical in its approach to nature, and is largely intuitive in form.

Well, I don't know where all this leaves us. But I'm so very glad to hear from you, Coyoteman!

"Hi Gourmet Dan! I guess you could say we have an "observer problem" here: different articulations of the same evidence, both of which may actually be "true" from the respective points of view of the observers who have constructed their "experiments" differently. Personally, I regard science and philosophy (and theology is the "queen of metaphysics") not as "mutually-exclusive," but as complementary."

What I found interesting is that Towne could recognize a 'fantastic postulate' wrt the universe, yet overlooked the same 'fantastic postulate' wrt evolution. It was a fascinating insight into the inconsistencies of his beliefs."

"Darwinists are fond of reminding us that evolution theory is not an origin of life theory. Granted, this is true."

That's a modern-day cop-out born out of necessity. It was not always so. Early Darwinists loved the 'primordial ooze' concept that supposedly generated life spontaneously. As the evidence for abiogenesis receded into the distance, the paradigm was changed to exclude abiogenesis from 'evolution'. Ask them this, at what point did molcules begin 'evolving' [changing]? Before they became alive or after? They can hardly argue after because then they need a fully-functional cell to self-assemble. Obviously, some evolutionary 'change' had to be occurring before life appeared and methinks they protesteth too much.

"But James strongly argues that in the mind/brain relation, the entire consciousness is "indivisible" -- not "quantizeable" -- and coextensive with the entire current brain state, not just individual brains cells or any combination of them."

"I dunno. To me it seems that saying consciousness is the ultimate product of primordial cells as it expresses via evolution is just to say we aren't going to deal with consciousness; because it, like the origin of life, is just too difficult a problem."

That's pretty weak, but so is the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP)and that has become so accepted that most people don't even remember that there used to be a Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP). The WAP being that the universe looks designed for life because only a universe with that complement of physical laws could generate life to observe it [necessitating an infinite number of universes model so that you can conceive the belief that it is possible to get one like ours randomly] while the SAP says that the universe looks designed for life because it is.

You can bet that they are working on a more acceptable way to explain-away that little consciousness problem. James may have it with his little 'not quantizable' argument. Anything that gives them enough wiggle room to 'conceive the belief' that evolution can accomodate the inconsistent evidence.

And my lawnmower doesn't cook breakfast, so its incomplete?

Coyoteman, we don't ask our lawnmowers to provide an account of the evolution of life (er, species is the standard reductionist term).

Specific things for specific purposes. The theory of evolution (not "Darwinism") deals with change in the genome.

If something "evolves," it must be evolving from something, and probably towards something. My conjecture is, that "something" contains (at its origin) the specification of evolutionary potentialities and the context of their development (materials and laws).

Wrong. There is no "toward." There is more likely to be an "away from" than a "toward." For any given condition, some individuals in a population are better adapted, some more poorly adapted. Those in a population who are better adapted will, in the long run, tend to have more offspring, while those who are more poorly adapted have relatively fewer offspring. The end result is the genome which is, overall, better adapted to the multiplicity of conditions in their environment will be passed on more successfully.

Just the word "evolve" implies a rational, not a haphazard process. For something to be "rational," it must have a "limit" somewhere. It can't be pure chaos and be "rational": Our universe appears to be lawfully ordered. But a chaos cannot order itself.

You just stepped off the deep end. While the natural world operates within given parameters, it is reactionary, not "rational" There is no planning which adaptations will work better; those which don't work as well are weeded out. As for "a chaos cannot order itself" you're back to that metaphysical philosophical mumbo-jumbo. That phrase simply has no meaning beyond opinion.

Back to "Darwinists" again. Otherwise this paragraph makes no sense to me.

If "thinking clearly" is what I often see in your posts, I will stick to science. The fog of words you weave around a subject generally leaves me none the wiser, and often slightly confused, for having groped my way through it.

This might seem like perfect psychobabble to you. If so, I'm really sorry for that.

Hallelujah! We agree on something!

(Mainly I'm just recapitulating Aristotle here.) It seems to me, the character of evolutionary development may very well depend in some way on the conditions of its origin. It seems to me a "life science" cannot forever dodge this problem.

What difference would you have in evolution if life started 1) naturally, 2) seeded from outer space, or 3) by some divine intervention? Please specify where the theory of evolution would have to be different for any of these three possibilities.

Darwin's theory is not a theory about the origin of life (or consciousness). I accept that. Though you'd think biology in general would want to come to grips with origins at some point.

Yes, I know its a theory. I have posted the definition of a theory dozens of times trying to educate others here on what a theory really is.

Biology does want to come to grip with origins. The theory of evolution is not the method it uses. There are hypotheses which are exploring origins, but none has yet gained sufficient support to be classified as a theory. (A biology book will contain hundreds of hypotheses and theories, along with the theory of evolution. Only creationists seem to think one theory has to, just HAS TO, deal with all of these diverse subjects.)

At the same time, I notice many people these days making Darwinist evolution theory the linchpin of an entire cosmology that does speculate about the origins of life.... On my view FWIW this is an illegitimate translation from science into fields where it is not appropriate.

Look closer. There may be more than one theory or hypothesis being addressed. Perhaps your disdain for evolution has led you to miss the dividing lines between separate lines of research?

And that is the case. However, with regard to the theory of evolution, there is currently no competing theory.

There have been two earth-shattering revolutions in the physical sciences within the past 100 years; but Darwinism just goes along "unevolved" as it were, as if none of the new physical discoveries are relevant to it.

Really? What revolutions are you considering? The theory of evolution has dealt well with the discovery of DNA, and has emerged stronger for it.

The theory of evolution (which you erroneously call "Darwinism" so as to demonize and "ism-ize" it) is a theory. And the details of that theory are being worked out in a hundred or more technical journals. The fact that it is in part an historical science makes no difference. The scientific method works just as well on historical sciences.

Well, I don't know where all this leaves us. But I'm so very glad to hear from you, Coyoteman!

It leaves me still advocating for science and the scientific method. (But its getting pretty lonely in these here parts lately!)

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.