Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.
Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.
It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.
The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.
The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.
The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”
I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.
Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.
The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale
As I also mentioned, the Copernican theory had another benefit in that it could explain the seasons. It was not without its deficits though. For example, if the earth moves, not only why don't we feel it, but also why don't the stars appear to shift position due to the earth's motion? Now of course we know they do and their great distance is why they don't appear to, but it wasn't obvious at the time.
;-)
By dogmatic evolutionist I mean someone who rejects out of hand the possibility of any basis in "knowledge" for the application of intelligent design in bringing about what is commonly referred to as "the natural world," and thus rejects out of hand any place in the classroom for discussion of the same.
This whole debate would not exist of everyone operated with the same givens. I count it as evidence that man is created in the image of God because he can operate intellectually from more than one point of view, and even "call things that are not as though they are."
That is correct as I understand it also. However, randomly generated cellular automata have a 1/256 chance (or better) of being a Universal Turing Machine, and thus can self-reproduce and can compute any computable function.
For that matter, there was a self-organized nuclear reactor in Africal some years ago.
Copernican theory also allows one to derive the law that "things further out move more slowly" which is false for geocentric systems.
I'm game, Alamo-Girl!
RWP writes: "if you deny a deity, then there is no volition to puzzle about."
This "volitional business" is not as simple as it looks, IHMO. For one thing, presumably most atheists would readily acknowledge that they have volition. So volition is fact. Thus I gather they just think that there is no volitional God. And therefore, the only rational question is "How?" because "Why?" is an idiotic question if there is no God. Thus utility becomes god-king, and questions of meaning have no rational basis.
Certainly I agree with the conclusion that if there is no God, then questions of meaning have no rational basis: Ratio is the measure of something in terms of a universal standard. Without God, what could constitute the universal standard?
If atheists say "there is no God," then it seems to me they are hoist on the same petard as their "banished" God; for such an assertion renders not only God meaningless, but also the atheist as well. And everything else in the world for that matter, especially including human reason.
And to say that man and everything else is meaningless seems to be the statement of a blind man. For you just have to walk around in the world to see that men are motivated by what is meaningful to them. If there is no meaning, then all men are thus deluded and delusional. (Including atheists -- that is, if they deliberately choose to pursue activities that are important, i.e., meaningful to them.)
Maybe we need to ask whether we can even get to a "How?" without first asking a "Why?" Why would one worry about "How?" if there is no "Why?" -- i.e., a reason for doing something? "How?" is how we actualize our plans and desires; but why would we do anything at all if there is no reason for doing anything? Reasons come from "Why?", techniques come from "How?" It seems to me the latter necessarily is subordinated to the former.
Further, without meaning, then human free will is pointless, and with it moral responsibility.
For all these reasons I think Dawkin's celebrated statement that he is "an intellectually fulfilled atheist" is oxymoronic in form.
Anyhoot, that's what the problem looks like to me, FWIW. I'd be glad hear from opposing views.
Thank you so much for writing, Alamo-Girl!
Well no, but what we consider naturally reasonable and obvious to the senses may be wrong. That is, they may be contradicted by other reasoning and other sense perceptions. It is very common that, as our technology improves and out measurements become more precise, that it becomes clear that our prior perceptions are wrong.
I hope you don't oppose science accomodating itself to the best available evidence.
Are dogmatic evolutionists able to divest themselves entirely of "givens?"
In my view science is naturally conservative. This is a good thing, right? But the history of science, and evolution is right in this mainstream, is that when sufficient discrepancies become apparent and when there is a better theory, science will move. Evolution is not being contradiccted by the evidence.
It isn't like evolution hasn't been challenged and sometimes found wanting. Are you familiar with the concept of endosymbiosis? That is not Darwinian evolution and was stronbgly opposed but is now accepted. There have been many other opportunities for evolution to fail (fossil evidence, geological evidence, genetic evidence) but Darwin's concept has come through largely unscathed. These are the "givens" that scientists don't want to give up.
But I think you're talking about some other "given," namely methodological naturalism. As I said, science is conservative. You have to have enough reason to change. Making a bunch of (largely) non-scientists feel good isn't nearly enough. Nor should it be.
I count it as evidence that man is created in the image of God because he can operate intellectually from more than one point of view
In the first place, we're comparing theories here, right? So for this to be an interesting observation, evolution must not be able to explain how man "can operate intellectually from more than one point of view." But the explanation is trivial as I'm sure you see.
In the second place, if we're created in the image of God (and I assume you mean intellectually), why aren't we as smart as God? Why aren't we only loving? Why can't we read other people's minds? Why can't we simply will reality to be some way?
Ah, here you'll go all ad hoc on me - it's because of the fall you'll say. But then why didn't the fall also take away the ability to see intellectually from more than one point of view?
And that takes me to the third point. To be considered evidence for a theory, it isn't enough for a fact to be simply consistent with the theory, it must follow deductively from the theory and its negation must be logically excluded.
Sounds like a great idea to me, A-G! Personally, FWIW I think if the false "Cartesian Split" isn't healed pretty soon, then probably the human race will go thoroughly bonkers; that is, raving mad, insane. :^)
It seems the Cartesian Split isn't only an epistemic problem; it may well be a psychological problem as well -- a "dividing" of the self, which may facilitate the construction of what Robert Musil and Hermieto von Doderer called "second realities."
That, of course, is a speculation. It would be fun to discuss it.
Actually, yes. The "givens" of methodological naturalism. What are they? I read your post with interest and you raise some good questions I might address later, but for now, I'd like to know the fundamental assumptions of those who view whatever sensory communication the universe presents, including those who might view it from what is known as "methodological naturalism."
From my viewpoint as an observer, I am approximately halfway through a journey that will allow me to collect and evaluate the universe into which I was born. "Science," to me, is what I can make of it all based on all the sources that communicate to me whether by nature or by other intelligent beings such as yourself.
It is from this perspective that I 1.) would rather engage in dialogue with adherents of evolution without resorting to "proof texts" and "links," and 2.) freely admit to ignorance on a scale science most likely cannot measure. Ignorance is not something I enjoy or seek to promote, but it is a HUGE given from my point of view.
. . . science is conservative.
Insofar as it does not yield theory on a whim, I agree. That is why I believe Copernicus made his propositions after seeing evidence, and not by arbitrarily thinking to himself, "Let's see what happens if I think about the earth as revolving around the sun."
But the word "conservative" carries too much baggage to be applied to science as a whole. IOW, in a certain way Copernicus was radical, and he was right.
. . . fossil evidence . . .
Think about what meets the senses of anyone who is introduced to fossils. Objectively, without the filter of books and teachings of other people, how much fossil evidence have you viewed with your own eyes? Everything I know about fossils, besides a few I've gotten to hold in my hand, comes from the testimony of other observers. The ones I've held in my hand do not speak to me about where they came from, how old they are, and how they came into being.
Even when I read about fossil evidence in a book, it is presented in two dimensions, when fossils are three dimensional at least, and possibly four dimensional. Already the evidence has been tainted.
Actually, I'd like to think my understanding that a report of a "fall" as explanatory of inconsistencies, anomolies, decay, etc. is not just an "ad hoc" assumption. It has been reported not only to me but also throughout all human generations known to science, by a source that (as I interpret the evidence presented to me) dates back several thousand years before I was born, that the earth I inhabit was once in a much better condition than it is now.
Now, I am as much at liberty to assert the veracity of this claim as the next observer is at liberty to assert whatever view has been reported to him, even if it were that the earth, the universe, or whatever, is the product of sixteen purple turles wracked by back pain from the intransigent compunctions of a well-travelled frog baked on three stones tossed twice over the northernmost ridges of Mount Everest before certain strikers of rocks fertilized a strain of beans consumed by the beavers that erected a dam resulting in the Mississippi River rats gnawing on the residual cheeseburger discarded by Howard Wilkey as he crossed the Eads Bridge last Thursday at 2:30:06:08:56:30 a.m. Mars Mean Time on his way to a convocation dedicated to the Epistemology of Gophers as Perceived by Hungry Rottweilers.
But I am certainly at liberty, I hope, to present my claim as the more reasonable of the two.
Please note, as possible further evidence of man as being created in the image of God, the words above which were "created" out of nothing science as we know it would able to predict. Like God, only to an exceedingly limited degree, man is a "creator."
Dear js1138, is it correct to conclude that you think variation and adaptation are the main drivers of the evolution of the universe and, in particular, life – i.e., speciation -- on this planet?
If this is not so, then please disregard the following.
But if it is so, may I offer an alternative speculation? Which is not really “mine,” but actually a reconsideration and continuation of a line of development that began in ancient Greece, with the great pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, and continued into more recent times by the great mathematician/philosopher, Leibniz, and in modern times by A. N. Whitehead (among others). This particular line of inquiry about the ultimate nature of the Universe goes to questions of ontology, a specialty of philosophy – ontology being the “science of Being.” That is, the science of what is, how it came to be, and by what principles it is organized.
According to these thinkers, everything that comes into existence in this world is the product of two ultimate laws: (1) a conservation principle, which refers to that which does not change; and (2) a variation principle, which refers to that which changes. The Universe and everything in it is the product of the resonant tension between the two.
To my mind, there is a very direct analogy here to the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law is the conservation principle: matter is neither created nor destroyed. The second law – the law of maximum entropy increase – is the principle of change. Without the second law, the Universe would be entirely static. Without the first law, chaos would rule, and nothing could come into existence at all.
It is interesting to note that the second law has been undergoing reconceptualization in recent times, to make it more “biology-friendly” (so to speak). Of particular noteworthiness is the work of Katalin Martinas et al. In contrast to the view of classical physics and chemistry which regards entropy as the engine of chaos and, finally of thermodynamic equilibrium or “heat death,” in the “biology-friendly” model of the second law, entropy is regarded as the probability distribution of a virtually infinite set of biologically-accessible possible states. This idea is tied into Shannon’s concept of “successful communication”: living organisms are able to “select” from the set of possibilities (that is, upon the “reduction of uncertainty in the receiver”) the relevant information necessary to the furtherance of biological goals, internal (e.g., maintentance activities, repair, protein-folding specs, etc.) and external (e.g., the ability of the organism to react sensitively to changes in its environment, to be self-moving, etc.). The source of biological information (analogous to the conservation principle) is conveyed or mediated by universal EM and (at the subtlest levels) vacuum fields. “Successful communication” – which causes a “reduction of uncertainty in the receiver” – is facilitated by photon exchanges at the quantum level of the organism.
On this scheme, high entropy is most desirable for biological organisms – the more, the merrier. For the higher the entropy, the more the biological possibilities from which to select. Which would appear to be a great engine for biological variation and adaptation in an evolving Universe.
On this view, the fecundity principle or life principle is the universal information source itself, which intrudes itself on us (so to speak) by means of the primary universal Vacuum, via energetic exchanges at the quantum depths of organisms. This is what makes organisms “alive,” and not just inert matter.
Personally, I find this speculation highly intriguing. I don’t know what you will think of it, js1138; but I’m counting on you to let me know.
Plus you made me laugh out loud!!!! So I got a "two-fer!"
Thanks ever so much for writing!
me: What would you assert are characteristics of intelligence that would be seen in a variation regardless of the agent - God, aliens, collective consciousness, self?
you: I would think that at a minimum, there would be some correlation between variation and adaptation. More targeted mutations and less malthusian wastage.
It seems to me that Gehring's work on master control genes (eyeness evolving concurrently across phyla) along with Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium observation are sample correlations of profound efficiencies in mutation/adaptation.
Causations being investigated point to a control: on the one hand, mutation resistance in control genes and on the other, metasystem transition.
As we move further into the research, perhaps the properties of intelligence will be apparent in either the causation/control or the resulting adaptation.
For a generic definition, I like this one: "the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience" (Princeton)
However, for the purposes of our definition project, we also must address the fractal/emergent question. I suggest we stipulate that it not be prejudiced either way. I also do not object if you want to go with a tougher set of properties like the ones I raised (decision-making, awareness, purpose).
My counter proposals:
Well sure, there were discrepancies and difficulties with the prevailing theory. Lots of people were working on it. However the arbitrariness of Copernicus' thought isn't far off the mark. As I have mentioned before (a couple of times and for this very reason) the Tychonic scheme was a good an explanation as the Copernican, better in fact because it explains the lack of apparent motion of the stars due to the earth's motion in the Copernican scheme. Suppose Copernicus had thought of Tycho's scheme first. Galileo might never have been persecuted.
in a certain way Copernicus was radical, and he was right.
I said science is conservative. I hope you agree that science can be conservative even if not all scientists are. But, was Copernicus radical? Certainly he had a new and promising idea, but he also kept circular motion and even added epicycles. Was Einstein radical? He turned physics upside down. But he could never reconcile himself to the reality of QM. I don't think radical is the right term.
There were radicals though. For example, when Napolean asked Laplace why his book didn't mention God, he reportedly said "I have no need of that hypothesis." Methodological naturalism was a radical development. The overthrow of determinism with QM is another. I guess my point is that radicalism in science has more to do with changing the underlying philosophy in a fundamental way. On the scale of radical-ness then I'd put Copernicus way down the list.
Everything I know about fossils, besides a few I've gotten to hold in my hand, comes from the testimony of other observers.
So? Everything I know about virtually everything is that way. I've never seen the Eiffel Tower first hand. I've never seen George Bush in person. China? They say there're over a billion people there, but I've never seen them.
I think what you may have been trying to say is that the interpretation of fossils is suspect and arbitrary because it is theory laden. Have I got that right?
There is a tendency to equate self-organizing complexity with self-replication. As a metaphor, if the cells were only self-replicating, a fetus would look like a tumor.
Also, the emphasis in self-organizing complexity is on the "self". A snowflake, for instance, is not an example of self-organizing complexity because it is made structurally complex by external forces. For more: Syntactic Autonomy: Or Why There is no Autonomy Without Symbols and how Self-Organizing Systems Might Evolve Them
If atheists say "there is no God," then it seems to me they are hoist on the same petard as their "banished" God; for such an assertion renders not only God meaningless, but also the atheist as well. And everything else in the world for that matter, especially including human reason.
Perhaps you'll find some time this summer to author an essay-article to get just such a discussion started here. hint... hint...
Thank you so much for everything, my dear sister in Christ!
I know you'd like to think that. To me it sounds like an ad hoc creation - invented just-so to explain inconsistencies, anomolies, decay, etc.
But I am certainly at liberty, I hope, to present my claim as the more reasonable of the two.
Because it is simpler, right? And yet the evolutionary explanations are simpler yet. They fall right of the theory. No ad hoc-ness at all.
as possible further evidence of man as being created in the image of God, the words above which were "created" out of nothing science as we know it would able to predict.
Why do you think I or anyone should find that convincing? If I were to claim that the sun created fire because because they're both very hot, would I convince you? I hope not. Analogy is not science.
I'm curious, what do you say to people who would claim that God is made in man's image? Analogy works both ways you know.
Quantum Mechanics was accepted almost instantly (during 1926 or so). Einstein only thought QM incomplete, not wrong. QM was accepted because it explained so many things; the periodic table, radioactive decay, electron diffraction, heat capacities, the photoelectric effect, superfluidity, etc. Physics went from Laplacian-deterministic to Heisenbergian-random in less than a year.
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.