The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Scientists thought it was settled. The universe, they had decided, is about 20 billion years old, and Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. Simple forms of life came into being more than three billion years ago, having formed spontaneously from nonliving matter. They grew more complex through slow evolutionary processes and the first hominid ancestors of humanity appeared more than four million years ago. Homo sapians itself—the present human species, people like you and me—has walked the earth for at least 50,000 years.

But apparently it isn't settled. There are Americans who believe that the earth is only about 6,000 years old; that human beings and all other species were brought into existence by a divine Creator as eternally separate variations of beings; and that there has been no evolutionary process.

They are creationists—they call themselves "scientific" creationists—and they are a growing power in the land, demanding that schools be forced to teach their views. State legislatures, mindful of the votes, are beginning to succumb to the pressure. In perhaps 15 states, bills have been introduced, putting forth the creationist point of view, and in others, strong movements are gaining momentum. In Arkansas, a law requiring that the teaching of creationism receive equal time was passed this spring and is scheduled to go into effect in September 1982, though the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit on behalf of a group of clergymen, teachers, and parents to overturn it. And a California father named Kelly Segraves, the director of the Creation-Science Research Center, sued to have public-school science classes taught that there are other theories of creation besides evolution, and that one of them was the Biblical version. The suit came to trial in March, and the judge ruled that educators must distribute a policy statement to schools and textbook publishers explaining that the theory of evolution should not be seen as "the ultimate cause of origins." Even in New York, the Board of Education has delayed since January in making a final decision, expected this month [June 1981], on whether schools will be required to include the teaching of creationism in their curriculums.

The Rev. Jerry Fallwell, the head of the Moral Majority, who supports the creationist view from his television pulpit, claims that he has 17 million to 25 million viewers (though Arbitron places the figure at a much more modest 1.6 million). But there are 66 electronic ministries which have a total audience of about 20 million. And in parts of the country where the Fundamentalists predominate—the so called Bible Belt— creationists are in the majority.

They make up a fervid and dedicated group, convinced beyond argument of both their rightness and their righteousness. Faced with an apathetic and falsely secure majority, smaller groups have used intense pressure and forceful campaigning—as the creationists do—and have succeeded in disrupting and taking over whole societies.

Yet, though creationists seem to accept the literal truth of the Biblical story of creation, this does not mean that all religious people are creationists. There are millions of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews who think of the Bible as a source of spiritual truth and accept much of it as symbolically rather than literally true. They do not consider the Bible to be a textbook of science, even in intent, and have no problem teaching evolution in their secular institutions.

To those who are trained in science, creationism seems like a bad dream, a sudden reveling of a nightmare, a renewed march of an army of the night risen to challenge free thought and enlightenment.

The scientific evidence for the age of the earth and for the evolutionary development of life seems overwhelming to scientists. How can anyone question it? What are the arguments the creationists use? What is the "science" that makes their views "scientific"? Here are some of them:

A watch implies a watchmaker, say the creationists. If you were to find a beautifully intricate watch in the desert, from habitation, you would be sure that it had been fashioned by human hands and somehow left it there. It would pass the bounds of credibility that it had simply formed, spontaneously, from the sands of the desert.

By analogy, then, if you consider humanity, life, Earth, and the universe, all infinitely more intricate than a watch, you can believe far less easily that it "just happened." It, too, like the watch, must have been fashioned, but by more-than-human hands—in short by a divine Creator.

This argument seems unanswerable, and it has been used (even though not often explicitly expressed) ever since the dawn of consciousness. To have explained to prescientific human beings that the wind and the rain and the sun follow the laws of nature and do so blindly and without a guiding would have been utterly unconvincing to them. In fact, it might have well gotten you stoned to death as a blasphemer.

There are many aspects of the universe that still cannot be explained satisfactorily by science; but ignorance only implies ignorance that may someday be conquered. To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.

In short, the complexity of the universe—and one's inability to explain it in full—is not in itself an argument for a Creator.

Some creationists point at that belief in a Creator is general among all peoples and all cultures. Surly this unanimous craving hints at a greater truth. There would be no unanimous belief in a lie.

General belief, however, is not really surprising. Nearly every people on earth that considers the existence of the world assumes it to have been created by a god or gods. And each group invents full details for the story. No two creation tales are alike. The Greeks, the Norsemen, the Japanese, the Hindus, the American Indians, and so on and so on all have their own creation myths, and all of these are recognized by Americans of Judeo-Christian heritage as "just myths."

The ancient Hebrews also had a creation tale—two of them, in fact. There is a primitive Adam-and-Eve-in-Paradise story, with man created first, then animals, then women. There is also a poetic tale of God fashioning the universe in six days, with animals preceding man, and man and woman created together.

These Hebrew myths are not inherently more credible than any of the others, but they are our myths. General consent, of course, proves nothing: There can be a unanimous belief in something that isn't so. The universal opinion over thousands of years that the earth was flat never flattened its spherical shape by one inch.

Creationists frequently stress the fact that evolution is "only a theory," giving the impression that a theory is an idle guess. A scientist, one gathers, arising one morning with nothing particular to do, decided that perhaps the moon is made of Roquefort cheese and instantly advances the Roquefort-cheese theory.

A theory (as the word is used by scientists) is a detailed description of some facet of the universe's workings that is based on long observation and, where possible, experiment. It is the result of careful reasoning from these observations and experiments that has survived the critical study of scientists generally.

For example, we have the description of the cellular nature of living organisms (the "cell theory"); of objects attracting each other according to fixed rule (the "theory of gravitation"); of energy behaving in discrete bits (the "quantum theory"); of light traveling through a vacuum at a fixed measurable velocity (the "theory of relativity"), and so on.

All are theories; all are firmly founded; all are accepted as valid descriptions of this or that aspect of the universe. They are neither guesses nor speculations. And no theory is better founded, more closely examined, more critically argued and more thoroughly accepted, than the theory of evolution. If it is "only" a theory, that is all it has to be.

Creationism, on the other hand, is not a theory. There is no evidence, in the scientific sense, that supports it. Creationism, or at least the particular variety accepted by many Americans, is an expression of early Middle Eastern legend. It is fairly described as "only a myth."

Creationists, in recent years, have stressed the "scientific" background of their beliefs. They point out that there are scientists who base their creationists beliefs on a careful study of geology, paleontology, and biology and produce "textbooks" that embody those beliefs.

Virtually the whole scientific corpus of creationism, however, consists of the pointing out of imperfections in the evolutionary view. The creationists insists, for example, that evolutionists cannot true transition states between species in the fossil evidence; that age determinations through radioactive breakdown are uncertain; that alternative interpretations of this or that piece of evidence are possible and so on.

Because the evolutionary view is not perfect and is not agreed upon by all scientists, creationists argue that evolution is false and that scientists, in supporting evolution, are basing their views on blind faith and dogmatism.

To an extent, the creationists are right here: The details of evolution are not perfectly known. Scientists have been adjusting and modifying Charles Darwin's suggestions since he advanced his theory of the origin of species through natural selection back in 1859. After all, much has been learned about the fossil record and physiology, microbiology, biochemistry, ethology, and various other branches of life science in the last 125 years, and it was to be expected that we can improve on Darwin. In fact, we have improved on him. Nor is the process finished. it can never be, as long as human beings continue to question and to strive for better answers.

The details of evolutionary theory are in dispute precisely because scientists are not devotees of blind faith and dogmatism. They do not accept even as great thinker as Darwin without question, nor do they accept any idea, new or old, without thorough argument. Even after accepting an idea, they stand ready to overrule it, if appropriate new evidence arrives. If, however, we grant that a theory is imperfect and details remain in dispute, does that disprove the theory as a whole?

Consider. I drive a car, and you drive a car. I do not know exactly how an engine works. Perhaps you do not either. And it may be that our hazy and approximate ideas of the workings of an automobile are in conflict. Must we then conclude from this disagreement that an automobile does not run, or that it does not exist? Or, if our senses force us to conclude that an automobile does exist and run, does that mean it is pulled by an invisible horses, since our engine theory is imperfect?

However much scientists argue their differing beliefs in details of evolutionary theory, or in the interpretation of the necessarily imperfect fossil record, they firmly accept the evolutionary process itself.

Creationists have learned enough scientific terminology to use it in their attempts to disprove evolution. They do this in numerous ways, but the most common example, at least in the mail I receive is the repeated assertion that the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates the evolutionary process to be impossible.

In kindergarten terms, the second law of thermodynamics says that all spontaneous change is in the direction of increasing disorder—that is, in a "downhill" direction. There can be no spontaneous buildup of the complex from the simple, therefore, because that would be moving "uphill." According to the creationists argument, since, by the evolutionary process, complex forms of life evolve from simple forms, that process defies the second law, so creationism must be true.

Such an argument implies that this clearly visible fallacy is somehow invisible to scientists, who must therefore be flying in the face of the second law through sheer perversity. Scientists, however, do know about the second law and they are not blind. It's just that an argument based on kindergarten terms is suitable only for kindergartens.

To lift the argument a notch above the kindergarten level, the second law of thermodynamics applies to a "closed system"—that is, to a system that does not gain energy from without, or lose energy to the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole.

Within a closed system, there are subsystems that can gain complexity spontaneously, provided there is a greater loss of complexity in another interlocking subsystem. The overall change then is a complexity loss in a line with the dictates of the second law.

Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the second law, as long as another interlocking part of the system — the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continually — moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill. If the sun were to cease shining, evolution would stop and so, eventually, would life.

Unfortunately, the second law is a subtle concept which most people are not accustomed to dealing with, and it is not easy to see the fallacy in the creationists distortion.

There are many other "scientific" arguments used by creationists, some taking quite cleaver advantage of present areas of dispute in evolutionary theory, but every one of then is as disingenuous as the second-law argument.

The "scientific" arguments are organized into special creationist textbooks, which have all the surface appearance of the real thing, and which school systems are being heavily pressured to accept. They are written by people who have not made any mark as scientists, and, while they discuss geology, paleontology and biology with correct scientific terminology, they are devoted almost entirely to raising doubts over the legitimacy of the evidence and reasoning underlying evolutionary thinking on the assumption that this leaves creationism as the only possible alternative.

Evidence actually in favor of creationism is not presented, of course, because none exist other than the word of the Bible, which it is current creationist strategy not to use.

Some creationists putt all matters of scientific evidence to one side and consider all such things irrelevant. The Creator, they say, brought life and the earth and the entire universe into being 6,000 years ago or so, complete with all the evidence for eons-long evolutionary development. The fossil record, the decaying radio activity, the receding galaxies were all created as they are, and the evidence they present is an illusion.

Of course, this argument is itself irrelevant, for it can be neither proved nor disproved. it is not an argument, actually, but a statement. I can say that the entire universe was created two minutes age, complete with all its history books describing a nonexistent past in detail, and with every living person equipped with a full memory; you, for instance, in the process of reading this article in midstream with a memory of what you had read in the beginning—which you had not really read.

What kind of Creator would produce a universe containing so intricate an illusion? It would mean that the Creator formed a universe that contained human beings whom He had endowed with the faculty of curiosity and the ability to reason. He supplied those human beings with an enormous amount of subtle and cleverly consistent evidence designed to mislead them and cause them to be convinced that the universe was created 20 billion years ago and developed by evolutionary processes that include the creation and the development of life on Earth. Why?

Does the Creator take pleasure in fooling us? Does it amuse Him to watch us go wrong? Is it part of a test to see if human beings will deny their senses and their reason in order to cling to myth? Can it be that the Creator is a cruel and malicious prankster, with a vicious and adolescent sense of humor?

The Bible says that God created the world in six days, and the Bible is the inspired word of God. To the average creationist this is all that counts. All other arguments are merely a tedious way of countering the propaganda of all those wicked humanists, agnostics, an atheists who are not satisfied with the clear word of the Lord.

The creationist leaders do not actually use that argument because that would make their argument a religious one, and they would not be able to use it in fighting a secular school system. They have to borrow the clothing of science, no matter how badly it fits, and call themselves "scientific" creationists. They also speak only of the "Creator," and never mentioned that this Creator is the God of the Bible.

We cannot, however, take this sheep's clothing seriously. However much the creationist leaders might hammer away at in their "scientific" and "philosophical" points, they would be helpless and a laughing-stock if that were all they had.

It is religion that recruits their squadrons. Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.

Even if I am right and the evolutionists' case is very strong, have not creationists, whatever the emptiness of their case, a right to be heard? if their case is empty, isn't it perfectly safe to discuss it since the emptiness would then be apparent? Why, then are evolutionists so reluctant to have creationism taught in the public schools on an equal basis with evolutionary theory? can it be that the evolutionists are not as confident of their case as they pretend. Are they afraid to allow youngsters a clear choice?

First, the creationists are somewhat less than honest in their demand for equal time. It is not their views that are repressed: schools are by no means the only place in which the dispute between creationism and evolutionary theory is played out. There are churches, for instance, which are a much more serious influence on most Americans than the schools are. To be sure, many churches are quite liberal, have made their peace with science and find it easy to live with scientific advance — even with evolution. But many of the less modish and citified churches are bastions of creationism.

The influence of the church is naturally felt in the home, in the newspapers, and in all of surrounding society. It makes itself felt in the nation as a whole, even in religiously liberal areas, in thousands of subtle ways: in the nature of holiday observance, in expressions of patriotic fervor, even in total irrelevancies. In 1968, for example, a team of astronomers circling the moon were instructed to read the first few verses of Genesis as though NASA felt it had to placate the public lest they rage against the violation of the firmament. At the present time, even the current President of the United States has expressed his creationist sympathies.

It is only in school that American youngsters in general are ever likely to hear any reasoned exposition of the evolutionary viewpiont. They might find such a viewpoint in books, magazines, newspapers, or even, on occasion, on television. But church and family can easily censor printed matter or television. Only the school is beyond their control.

But only just barely beyond. Even though schools are now allowed to teach evolution, teachers are beginning to be apologetic about it, knowing full well their jobs are at the mercy of school boards upon which creationists are a stronger and stronger influence.

Then, too, in schools, students are not required to believe what they learn about evolution—merely to parrot it back on test. If they fail to do so, their punishment is nothing more than the loss of a few points on a test or two.

In the creationist churches, however, the congregation is required to believe. Impressionable youngsters, taught that they will go to hell if they listen to the evolutionary doctrine, are not likely to listen in comfort or to believe if they do. Therefore, creationists, who control the church and the society they live in and to face the public-school as the only place where evolution is even briefly mentioned in a possible favorable way, find they cannot stand even so minuscule a competition and demand "equal time."

Do you suppose their devotion to "fairness" is such that they will give equal time to evolution in their churches?

Second, the real danger is the manner in which creationists want threir "equal time." In the scientific world, there is free and open competition of ideas, and even a scientist whose suggestions are not accepted is nevertheless free to continue to argue his case. In this free and open competition of ideas, creationism has clearly lost. It has been losing, in fact, since the time of Copernicus four and a half centuries ago. But creationism, placing myth above reason, refused to accept the decision and are now calling on the government to force their views on the schools in lieu of the free expression of ideas. Teachers must be forced to present creationism as though it had equal intellectual respectability with evolutionary doctrine.

If the government can mobilize its policemen and its prisons to make certain that teachers give creationism equal time, they can next use force to make sure that teachers declare creationism the victor so that evolution will be evicted from the classroom altogether. We will have established ground work, in other words, for legally enforced ignorance and for totalitarian thought control. And what if the creationists win? They might, you know, for there are millions who, faced with a choice between science and their interpretation of the Bible, will choose the Bible and reject science, regardless of the evidence.

This is not entirely because of the traditional and unthinking reverence for the literal words of the Bible; there is also a pervasive uneasiness—even an actual fear—of science that will drive even those who care little for fundamentalism into the arms of the creationists. For one thing, science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel among themselves. This is disillusioning for those untrained in the scientific method, who thus turn to the rigid certainty of the Bible instead. There is something comfortable about a view that allows for no deviation and that spares you the painful necessity of having to think.

Second, science is complex and chilling. The mathematical language of science is understood by very few. The vistas it presents are scary—an enormous universe ruled by chance and impersonal rules, empty and uncaring, ungraspable and vertiginous. How comfortable to turn instead to a small world, only a few thousand years old, and under God's personal and immediate care; a world in which you are his particular concern and where He will not consign you to hell if you are careful to follow every word of the Bible as interpreted for you by your television preacher.

Third, science is dangerous. There is no question but that poison gas, genetic engineering, and nuclear weapons and power stations are terrifying. It may be that civilization is falling apart and the world we know is coming to an end. In that case, why not turn to religion and look forward to the Day of Judgment, in which you and your fellow believers will be lifted into eternal bliss and have the added joy of watching the scoffers and disbelievers writhe forever in torment.

There are numerous cases of societies in which the armies of the night have ridden triumphantly over minorities in order to establish a powerful orthodoxy which dictates official thought. Invariably, the triumphant ride is toward long-range disaster. Spain dominated Europe and the world in the 16th century, but in Spain orthodoxy came first, and all divergence of opinion was ruthlessly suppressed. The result was that Spain settled back into blankness and did not share in the scientific, technological and commercial ferment that bubbled up in other nations of Western Europe. Spain remained an intellectual backwater for centuries. In the late 17th century, France in the name of orthodoxy revoked the Edict of Nantes and drove out many thousands of Huguenots, who added their intellectual vigor to lands of refuge such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Prussia, while France was permanently weakened.

In more recent times, Germany hounded out the Jewish scientists of Europe. They arrived in the United States and contributed immeasurably to scientific advancement here, while Germany lost so heavily that there is no telling how long it will take it to regain its former scientific eminence. The Soviet Union, in its fascination with Lysenko, destroyed its geneticists, and set back its biological sciences for decades. China, during the Cultural Revolution, turned against Western science and is still laboring to overcome the devastation that resulted.

As we now, with all these examples before us, to ride backward into the past under the same tattered banner of orthodoxy? With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses ill-equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow.

We will inevitably recede into the backwater of civilization, and those nations that retain opened scientific thought will take over the leadership of the world and the cutting edge of human advancement. I don't suppose that the creationists really plan the decline of the United States, but their loudly expressed patriotism is as simpleminded as their "science." If they succeed, they will, in their folly, achieve the opposite of what they say they wish.

( Isaac Asimov, "The 'Threat' of Creationism," New York Times Magazine, June 14, 1981; from Science and Creationism, Ashley Montagu, ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 182-193. )

The existence of mesoscopic (intermediate between microscopic and macroscopic) Bose condensation in form of coherent clusters in condensed matter (liquid and solid) at the ambient temperature was rejected for a long time. The reason of such shortcoming was a wrong primary assumption, that the thermal oscillations of atoms and molecules in condensed matter are harmonic ones (see for example: Beck and Eccles, 1992).

I don't know anyone who assumes that. And it's completely irrelevant. You scatter off phonons (lattice vibrations) whether they're calculated anharmonically or harmonically. Straw man.

Such weak dependence of potential energy on the distance can be considered as indication of long-range interaction due to the expressed cooperative properties of water as associative liquid. The difference between water and ice points, that the role of distant Van der Waals interactions, stabilizing primary effectons (mesoscopic molecular Bose condensate), is increasing with dimensions of these coherent clusters as a result of temperature decreasing and liquid > solid phase transition. It is a strong evidence that oscillations of molecules in water and ice are strongly anharmonic and the condensed matter can not be considered as a classical system, following condition (1.1) and (1.6).

This is a piece of jargon-laced gobbledegook. van der Waals interactions have an inverse sixth power dependence on distance. 'Distant van der Waals interactions' is a contradiction in terms. My colleague, Xiaocheng Zeng has done explicit quantum calculations on water clusters of 120 molecules, and is fitting them with an empirical force field to allow stat. mechanical modeling. Long range cooperative interactions of the sort Kaivarainen's discussing (more like waffling on about) there don't enter the picture. The is a degree of cooperativity in hydrogen bonding, but it's still only a three-body problem. Water has a dielectric constant of around 80, so it screens long-range electrostatic interactions more effectively than almost anything.

There's a long way from discussing whether water can be treated as a classical system (for most purposes it probably can), and whether an ensemble of quantum of classical or quantum particles, moving thermally at 300 K, can sustain Bose condensation. There is no experimental evidence for such condensation. Bose-Einstein condensation between heavy particles has only recently been demonstrated, at 0.000001 K. I suppose you could argue superfluid helium 4 is Bose condensed, but that's the most weakly interacting atom known, at 1/150 of room temperature. So we're supposed to believe it happens at an absolute temperature 300 million times higher, in the absence of experimental evidence or any decent theory? This is like hypothesising that molecules, which are correlated quantum systems that persist up to a couple of thousand kelvin, perhaps, could exist in the center of the sun.

Have you ever watched Brownian moton of a pollen grain? Pollen in water, bombarded by water molecules many trillions of times smaller than itself, is buffeted around randomly like a beachball in a stormy ocean. So put two beachballs in the ocean; will their air spaces delicately resonate with each other?

Evan Harris Walker, founder and director of the Walker Cancer Institute, has made major scientific contributions in astronomy, astrophysics, physics, neurophysiology, psychology, and medicine. Since he received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Maryland in 1964, he has published more than a hundred papers in scientific journals and popular magazines and holds a dozen patents."

OK, so I did a Sci Finder search. Since his 1977 paper in Int. J. Quantum. Chem., where he put forward his quantum synapse hypothesis (he was at Aberdeen Proving Ground at the time, BTW), he wrote a 1980 cancer review (a review is a summary of published work, not original research ). An Evan H Walker filed a patent in 1990 on a binary munition system; this could have been the same guy, given where he worked. There is one natural products isolation with Evan H. Walker as a senior author, and the Walker Cancer Inst. as an address, in 2002.

And we have "Cancer as a mechanism of hypermutation". Walker E H U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 ACTA BIOTHEORETICA (1992 Mar), 40(1), 31-40. Looks like he's also got novel thoughts to share about cancer, as well as consciousness. Acta biotheoretica is not a journal I'm familiar with; BTW. But here' a quote for ya, from the abstract:

It is proposed that cancer exists as a phylogenetic mechanism serving to promote "hyperevolution", albeit at the expense of the ontogeny, that is similar to a process recently discovered in bacterial mutations. Cell-surface-associated nucleic acid in tumorigenic cells and sperm cell vectorization of foreign DNA indicate the existence of essential mechanisms necessary to the occurrence of cancer mediated hyperevolution. An analysis of the proposed mechanism indicates that for mutagenesis of chemical cytology, stress induced neoplasticity confers an evolutionary advantage of more than two orders of magnitude.

Horror of horrors, he's an evolutionist!

There are a few E.H. Walker and E.H. Walker, Jr. papers from Tulane, UCLA and Oklahoma State, and the MRC in England. The MRC guy is Edward H. Walker. The OSU guy looks like a grad. student. Since Walker's address in 1992 was still Aberdeen Proving Ground, we can rule out papers in the 1980s with a different address.

So, since 1977, we have not one but two, ahem, highly original theories suggesting the biophysical or biomedical community has gotten it all wrong; one review, one natural producs isolation, and one patent. I can't find much before 1977 either, but abstracting systems are generally less efficient the further you go back, so I don't put so much faith in that. He might well have 100 publications; scientific search engines, though good, are not perfect, but gosh, I'm having a hard time finding ten I can positively assign to him. And, God bless him, he does publish his ideas and subject them to the snide comments of a$$holes like me, so he has some courage.

I don't normally hang my hat on arguments from authority, but when someone else claims authority or credentials, I examine the claim.

Maybe you should try to be just a little skeptical here, Phaedrus?

Thank you so much for your reply!

I looked for information on the net by "Xiaocheng Zhang" and only found nuclear reactor and finance information. Is this name one that inverts to " Zhang Xiaocheng?" There is much more available on that construction.

Alex Kaivarainen is seen as a kook by a number of people precisely because he makes certain claims concerning consciousness and quantum mechanics. I found it quite interesting that Democratic Underground is among the debunkers (LOL!)

Evidently, you put Penrose, Hameroff and Kaivarainen in the same bucket. I respectfully disagree. Hameroff’s work Cytoplasmic Gel States and Ordered Water: Possible Roles in Biological Quantum Coherence fits nicely with Kaivarainen:

Actin gelation and microtubule assembly produce cytoplasmic rearrangements such as amoeboid movements, mitosis and cleavage, neurite growth and synaptic formation. The regulation and control of these self-organizing behaviors are not well understood. There is some suggestion that quantum coherence is involved in living matter, and in consciousness [3,21,22].

Herbert Frohlich, an early contributor to the understanding of superconductivity, also predicted quantum coherence in living cells (based on earlier work by Oliver Penrose and Lars Onsager [23]) Frohlich [24-26] theorized that sets of protein dipoles in a common electromagnetic field (e.g. proteins within a polarized membrane, subunits within an electret polymer like microtubules) undergo coherent conformational excitations if energy is supplied. Frohlich postulated that biochemical and thermal energy from the surrounding "heat bath" provides such energy. Cooperative, organized processes leading to coherent excitations emerged, according to Frohlich, because of structural coherence of hydrophobic dipoles in a common voltage gradient.

Coherent excitation frequencies on the order of 109 to 1011 Hz (identical to the time domain for functional protein conformational changes, and in the microwave or gigaHz spectral region) were deduced by Fr hlich who termed them acousto-conformational transitions, or coherent (pumped) phonons. Such coherent states are termed Bose-Einstein condensates in quantum physics and have been suggested by Marshall [27] to provide macroscopic quantum states which support the unitary binding of consciousness. Experimental evidence for Frohlich-like coherent excitations in biological systems includes observation of gigaHz-range phonons in proteins [28], sharp-resonant non-thermal effects of microwave irradiation on living cells [29], gigaHz induced activation of microtubule pinocytosis in rat brain [30], and laser Raman spectroscopy detection of Frohlich frequency energy [31-32]. Coherent Frohlich excitations in cytoskeletal microtubules have been suggested to mediate information processing [5,7,9]. Related work has focused on water at the surfaces of quantum coherent biostructures. In the context of quantum field theory, an historical line of theoretical proposals [33-35] have examined interactions between the electric dipole field of water and the quantized electromagnetic field of the (cytoskeletal) biostructure.

In quantum field theory, fundamental fields fill the universe. Constituents of matter (electrons, protons, neutrons) are seen as the energy quanta of the matter field, which interacts with the quantum electromagnetic field by exchanging, creating and annihilating photons. ("Our world is made of matter and light" - [35]) The significant point for biology and neuroscience is that the allowed energy states ("eigenstates") of a quantum field are mutually correlated with other energy eigenstates. A quantum field is thus coherent, unitary, and avoids thermal disorder. Such properties characterize life, and consciousness. Jibu and Yasue [35] have specified "Quantum Brain Dynamics" (QBD) in which the quantized electromagnetic field interacts with the rotational field of water molecule dipoles within neural dendrites and glia. Lowest energy eigenstates ("ground," or "vacuum" states) of the water dipole field are memory states in QBD. The dynamic exchange - creation and annihilation of quasi-particles ("corticons") between the two fields - is consciousness, in the Jibu/Yasue view, and is proposed to interface to cytoskeletal dynamics which in turn interface with dendritic and neural network levels of brain function.

Here we consider three proposals in which ordered water may play a role in biological quantum coherence essential for living systems and consciousness: 1) quantum optical coherence in microtubule inner cores ("super-radiance" and "self-induced transparency"); 2) cellular "vision"; 3) isolation of microtubules from environmental decoherence.

Roger Penrose had this to say in Beyond the Doubting of a Shadow

14.5 With regard to the theoretical possibility of quantum coherence within microtubules, the model of Jibu et al (1994) seems well-founded, in which super-radiance effects are anticipated within microtubules (analogous to the activity of a laser), where the electromagnetic field interacts with ordered water. For this process to occur, it would be necessary for the water within the tubes actually to adopt this ordered structure, and to be appropriately free of the wrong kind of impurities, such as chloride ions. (Apparently, sodium, calcium, magnesium, and potassium ions, in low enough concentrations should not disturb the ordering.) It should be mentioned, however, that the type of coherent activity that is anticipated in the model of Jibu et al may not be sufficient for my purposes. Though it is a necessarily quantum effect, it is not, as it stands, a quantum-coherent effect of the type that my arguments require. Genuine quantum coherence seems to be necessary in order that the quantum/classical borderline can be probed, where the (non-computable) effect of the missing OR theory can significantly make its mark. (This comment has relevance to Klein's query at the end of his Section 1. Classical coherence in the brain may well occur, but it does not provide an opening for non-computational activity, which I argue is a characteristic feature of consciousness.) The Jibu et al mechanism may be part (though not all) of what is needed.

14.6 An interesting possibility has come my way, which may conceivably have relevance to the question of how quantum coherence might get conveyed between one neuron and another (a question raised by Klein). As noted in Shadows, Figs. 7.11, 7.12 on pp. 365, 366, there are some particular molecules (clathrins) that inhabit synaptic boutons, which have the highly symmetrical structure of a truncated icosahedron (like a modern soccer ball). These clathrin molecules have importance in the release of neurotransmitter chemicals at synapses (whereby the nerve signals are transmitted from neuron to neuron). Although I do not have specific suggestions to make here, I am struck by the extraordinary symmetry of these molecules. It has been brought to my attention (by Roy Douglas, cf. Douglas and Rutherford 1995) that, according to the Jahn-Teller effect, such highly symmetrical molecules would have a large energy gap between the lowest quantum energy level and the next. This lowest level would be highly degenerate, and there would be interesting quantum-mechanical effects when this degeneracy is broken.

14.7 Energy gaps and symmetry breaking, of this general nature, are central to the understanding of superconductivity - and superconductivity is one of the few clear phenomena in which large-scale quantum coherence takes place. Known observationally since 1911, and explained quantum-mechanically in 1957, superconductivity had been thought originally to be an exclusively very low-temperature phenomenon, occurring only at a few degrees above absolute zero. It is now known to occur at much higher temperatures of -158 degrees Celsius, or perhaps even -23 degrees (although this is not properly explained). It does not seem to be out of the question that there might be similar effects at the somewhat higher temperatures of microtubules. Perhaps there are understandings to be obtained about the behaviour of microtubules from the experimental insights gained from such high-temperature superconductors.

It appears you have an honest dispute with these other scientists. So be it. I lean to the Penrose point of view.

I’ve just started looking through this page of quantum links, but thought other Freepers might like a heads up also.

Thank you so much for your reply! Indeed, Max Tegmark is one of my favorites to watch, but in all fairness I must submit Hameroff's rebuttal to Tegmark's debunking:

The debate on decoherence - Biological feasibility of quantum states in the brain

Quantum approaches can explain enigmatic features of consciousness. However quantum coherent states must be isolated or shielded from environmental interactions and thermal noise which cause "decoherence". Critics of quantum approaches to consciousness point out that the "warm, wet and noisy" brain milieu would be particularly unfriendly to delicate quantum coherent states.

In early 1999 physicist Max Tegmark published a widely reported "refutation" of the "Penrose microtubule" model of quantum consciousness. Tegmark calculated decoherence times for microtubule quantum states (10-13 sec) which seem too fast to affect neuronal functions. An editorial in Science by Charles Seife (Cold numbers unmake quantum mind) suggested Tegmarks calculations had dealt a body blow to quantum consciousness.

However Tegmarks paper didnt address the relevant model (i.e. the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR model) but one of his own making; he only disproved his own theoretical concoction. Physicists Scott Hagan and Jack Tuszynski and I wrote a paper using Tegmark's own decoherence formula, but correcting for stipulations of the Orch OR proposal. Our paper (Quantum computation in brain microtubules: decoherence and biological feasibility) was published in the June 2002 issue of Physical Reviews (the same journal which published Tegmarks paper) and was also selected for inclusion in the June 2002 issue of The Virtual Journal of Quantum Information. Our calculations using the actual Orch OR proposal gave microtubule decoherence times of about 10-2 to 10-1 sec, with significantly longer times possible based on topological quantum error correction effects due to microtubule structural geometry. Thus our calculations theoretically bring microtubule quantum states into a physiological realm. Recent molecular dynamic simulations of microtubules based on crystallographic structural data by Professor Tuszynskis group further support significant quantum communication.

Tegmark has been invited to debate the microtubule decoherence issue at the forthcoming conference Quantum Mind 2003: Consciousness, quantum physics and the brain but has thus far declined to acknowledge the invitation.

Here we include the abstract of our paper responding to Tegmarks decoherence paper, a link to the complete paper in PDF format, and the Science editorial by Charles Seife.

Thank you for your post!

Can you point to a single neural structure discussed by Penrose that isn't present in, say a flatworm? Are the neurons of "simpler" organisms fundamentally different from ours?

Evidently, the non-computable effect is what is missing according to Penrose. The excerpt is repeated below, emphasis mine:

I don't think they've addressed really Tegmark's critical point. And the 'debate' invitation is a sure sign they're off the scientific reservation. The Biophysical society meeting, the APS meeting, etc. - real scientific meetings - don't have debates.

A state with a coherence lifetime of 10^-5 seconds or longer will surely have a spectroscopic signature. In a protein containing system, which therefore will have low symmetry, transitions from that state will be electric dipole allowed, or observable as resonances using a radiofrequency spectrometer. Neutron scattring should also be observed. Experimental demonstration of a coherent, non-nuclear transition with a linewidth of 10^5 Hz or less would be comparatively simple. Have they done the experiment?

I've read the papers, and IMHO this stuff is nonsense. I will consider changing my mind at the point there is an adequate experimental demonstration of such coherence. People who know some quantum mechanics but are naive about condensed matter can come up with all sorts of wonderful and bizarre effects, all of which are actually dissipated by random molecular motion far faster than they appear, unless you cool down to cryogenic temperatures. The last generation of biophysicists had to put up with something called the Davydov soliton, which actually spawned some hundreds of papers. Same general nonsense, different application. These papers

http://www.public.coe.edu/~jcotting/ss-phy.html

put paid to the soliton quite nicely, but I'd proud to say before I ever read it I'd decided the soliton made no physical sense, based on an understanding of the sorts of dynamics proteins molecules in water undergo. Later papers have indicate the soliton might live a little longer; one in Phys. Rev. B last year suggested 100 ps rather than 1 ps; but there has been no serious experimental support that I'm aware of for the soliton. And science is above all experimental.

Let me give you another analogy; perhaps a better one. If you take two guitars which are exactly in tune, brng them close together, and pluck one, the corresponding string on the other will start to vibrate in resonance with the first, and over a time scale of a second the second string will actually sound and the first will become almost silent. That's resonance, and it's similar to what happens in a quantum system. Now, take both guitars, and put them in a room where you fire off a gun every half second; or (more reasonably) blast 100 dB white noise through a stereo speaker. Will the resonance occur? No, because both are exposed to a far more intense random excitation from the noise. They'll both vibrate stochastically in response to the noise, but they'll cease to talk to each other.

Don't take my word for it, do the experiment, and let me know what happens. Make sure the noise is really loud, though; loud enough to make a single guitar string vibrate on its own.

Unless someone posts something unforseen on the subject, this will be my last word on it. I'm happy to sit back and be vindicated by history.

As I’ve seen you say before, ‘the ghost in the machine, the ghost in the machine.’ But there is no ghost and there is no machine, there is just existence…. IT is all of IT. And if that ain’t natural, then what is?

And IT – “just existence” -- would then just be a “natural machine,” of which we would simply be so many cogs. There is “just existence” – but there is also consciousness observing it: Yours or mine. If your consciousness were indistinguishable from “just existence” (whatever that is), then by what principle do you become self-aware, or aware of that which is beyond you?

You speak of an “artificial split of the mapping of reality.” I think you attribute this notion to me. So I’ll play along: I strongly doubt there is a way for “dogness” to grasp “beingness.” This isn’t an artificial split – this is a question of trying to capture a particular empirical observation in words. (Of course, the words and what they refer to are not the same thing, so in this sense the exercise is derivative, "artificial.")

Obviously both humans and dogs are bodily creatures. We are both mammals, etc. But though there is much we do not know about animal consciousness – and human consciousness, for that matter – I suspect you would never find a dog doing a systematic analysis of his own consciousness. Which, believe it or not, some human beings have done, and do – more to the point, are able to do. (A rather common ability, I suspect.)

Why don’t you try that (if you haven't already)? Then maybe you’d see that sometimes one needs “conceptual handles,” especially in those cases where there is nothing analogous to what one discovers about pure conscious awareness, any place else in the world outside of one’s own consciousness. People who have had this insight generally assume their “discovery” is a property pertaining to other human consciousnesses as well as their own.

What I’m speaking of here – a meditative, structured analysis of consciousness – does not appear to me as something identical to brain function per se. This is a something that can intend brain function itself as a subject for investigation, as if consciousness understands itself as being somehow a principle in its own right, one sufficiently “separated” from brain so as to be able to conduct such an inquiry in the first place.

There is something more than “brain function” to this; for brain seems to be all about computational functions. In simple, direct awareness (if the goal of a particular form of meditation is achieved), we discover there’s more to consciousness than simple computational ability, that it can range everywhere while not itself being spatially extended in any way (i.e., is “intangible,” since you dislike the use of the word “immaterial”), not instrumental to the achievement of any particular pragmatic purpose.

You can laugh at “the ghost in the machine,” the force vital, the soul, psyche, whatever you want to call it -- or rather, don't want to call it. Call it nothing if you like, or a fantasy. But that doesn’t make it “go away.” IMHO FWIW

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.