Comment (41)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggMonkeying about with evolution
Why do some people of faith distrust evolutionists? The reasons can be found in the notorious Scopes Monkey Trial.
I sometimes wonder goes through the mind of an American child faced with an afternoon of science classes. Does the prospect of an evolution discussion create a simmering sense of expectation, a trembling hope that something special is about to happen? Does the explosiveness of the topic and its contested history charge the classroom with electric excitement?
I doubt it. But there is no shortage of angst amongst American adults over just what goes on in those generally soporific science classes. Right now, 83 years on from the Scopes trial, the air is heavy in sleepy Louisiana, where the state legislature has ratified a bill to: "allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment... that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied, including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning…"
The most important point here, according to the widely-read magazine New Scientist, is that teachers in Louisiana can present topics related to evolution as scientifically questionable. Exasperated editors of science journals continue to fret over the fact that 45 percent of Americans ascribe to Young Earth Creationism, that is, that the Bible account of creation should be taken literally and that the intervening millennia could be counted on one’s fingers.
Are these evolutionary recusants merely religious fanatics either unwilling or unable to follow a relatively simple train of evidence? Perhaps some of them are. But the history of the popular debate on evolution demands a more nuanced consideration. The Scopes Monkey Trial is a case in point. This has become a touchstone for debate over evolution in the US ever since 1925. John Scopes was a teacher in Tennessee who defied a state law which banned evolution in the classroom. He was found guilty in a trial which riveted America and was even made into a classic film, Inherit the Wind.
At the centre of the controversy was the 1914 textbook which Scopes used, Civic Biology. The case for the prosecution was derided at the time (and ever since) as “theological bilge” from backwoods buffoons, partly because the defense team succeeded in turning the event into a trial of the historical and scientific value of the Bible. Time magazine described it as "the fantastic cross between a circus and a holy war". But what about the book itself? Everyone remembers the "degraded nonsense which country preachers are ramming and hammering into yokel skulls" (to quote the dyspeptic H.L. Mencken), but what about Civic Biology? What were its views on evolution? From a contemporary perspective, they, too, were bilge. Take for instance the author’s comments on race:
At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.
The author offers forceful recommendations regarding the problem of criminality:
Studies have been made on a number of different families in this country, in which mental and moral defects were present in one or both of the original parents. The "Jukes" family is a notorious example…. In seventy-five years the progeny of the original generation has cost the state of New York over a million and a quarter of dollars… If such people were lower animals; we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.
He is clear on the limits of reproductive choice:
When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, that dread white plague which is still responsible for almost one seventh of all deaths, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics.
And he makes quite explicit the link between his views and those of evolutionary science:
If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. This improvement of the future race has a number of factors in which we as individuals may play a part.
Objections, anyone?
One reason for the failure of evolution education at the popular level is that both sides have depicted evolution as inextricably linked to scientific materialism (clearly false), and one side of the debate has taken ethical anti-humanism to follow from scientific materialism (quite a sound conclusion). Scientific materialism may have expunged the eugenics movement from its pamphlets and websites, but it advocates eugenics under a new names like abortion, sex selection, genetic screening, and euthanasia. Note that both incarnations of the eugenics movement lay claim to a paradoxical ideal of compassion: we must be anti-human for the sake of humanity.
Materialists have claimed the discovery that man is 60 percent fruit fly, genetically speaking, is the basis for a radical new equality. What it really means, working from their philosophy, is the foundation for a radical new inequality. Souls are always equal, but genes are never. If the foundation for our deepest understanding of the human person is genetics, then the conclusions of Civic Biology, and the most radical of modern sociobiologists, are valid. And as long as evolutionary theory carries the baggage of a materialistic worldview imposed by its chief proponents, it will be opposed by many on the grounds of humanistic intuition independent of theological concerns.
Phil Elias studies Medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
I was joking :-)… I understood your point, although technically, it is a logical contradiction: we cannot choose not to choose. The only way not to choose (even not choosing) is by not thinking at all, so, free will is intimately connected to our ability to sub-vocalize our choices… interesting… you had already made the link between free will and conscience.
On a side-track, some time ago I read an Scientific American article about too much choices in our society. I came to the impression that it is not necessarily good… to much energy exploring those to know the best choices and what we gain on that, was wasted in the pursuit. :-)
João said: “Not one of your best phrases :-) If someone choose not to choose, is choosing, not not choosing :-)”
I was making the point that not choosing is also a choice. One of our Human failings is that all of us, some more than others, try to put aside the burden of free will. It never works.
“It is only the actions directed by our higher consciousness that could be said to be acts of free will”
And since I already told you I think free will to be an human concept, in other words, a tool from human conscience, I can only agree with you. I thought you were addressing the deeper paradox of how to conceive free will in the “mechanized/deterministic” universe presumed by science, but if you stop at conscience level, I’m fine with that.
I’ve been thinking lately about my “free will existence” test, looking for possible flaws. There’s a possible loophole in it: if we are forbidden somehow from doing what is needed to predict someone’s exact behavior, then we’ll never be able to prove there is no free will. What I’m saying is that the very concept which existence I want to prove ("no free will") might prevent is own proof.
This is not so far fetching as it might seem. Earlier, I was speculating about some fundamental constrain on our free will which could eventually exist, but that doesn’t mean we trust it to exist. And because we value our free will, as pertained to societies which see themselves free, we will act on everything which might potentially threat it, or eventually prove its nonexistence. That’s why defense of privacy or personnel information’s databases are a matter so sensible, although in same cases, they might produce valuable information to support good decisions. If by any chance, there is some biological compulsion to avoid to know everything or too much about someone, them the possibility I forwarded is valid.
“Of course, it must be remembered that you can also choose not to choose”
Not one of your best phrases :-) If someone choose not to choose, is choosing, not not choosing :-)
Interesting ideas. I’ll chew on them this evening.
João Pedro Afonso said: “An objective test of someone’s free will existence might be our incapacity to predict his exact behavior, which I think is generally impossible. However we know there are agencies and individuals able to have relative success doing that, so I cannot consider real free will as a given for now.”
I never said that free will is a constant, that every human action is the result of free will. It is only the actions directed by our higher consciousness that could be said to be acts of free will. Of course, it must be remembered that you can also choose not to choose. The Existentialists would call that bad faith.
...
About self-consciousness, it’s a new ball game, tougher than life. I’ll remark only that science is closer to produce real artificial life than artificial consciousness. But you made a direct question about free will and I’ll try to answer it:
For me, it’s a human concept. Some believe in their freedom to choose, even if some options came with an high price to pay, others will object to the costs and will not recognize that as a freedom. Free will has a lot of nuances: If the “best” of us choose to follow always the best way, doesn’t that means he is quitting from its own free will? Or maybe free will is in the power to choose or quit a path. But then, what kind of intelligent person is the one who chooses a worst path over a better one?
And so on,…
To this kind of discussion, is irrelevant if there are true free will or not. Even if we were living in a “clockwork” universe, we wouldn’t have enough information to justify or foretell all the human actions. So, to concede a “free will” that forces us to consider all the possible outcomes, is a reality assessment tool better than not to do that. Something similar happens with the evolution theory: Darwin theory was born in and to the XIX century “mechanic” world, however, its core is about unpredictable small changes… not exactly what we expect to hear from a clockwork universe theory.
Personally, I think free will is freedom to chose and pay the respective costs. The problem is that while the conscience may line its options and feel free to choose, no one knows how the ultimate decisor, the sub-conscience, do the final choice. So, I need more. An objective test of someone’s free will existence might be our incapacity to predict his exact behavior, which I think is generally impossible. However we know there are agencies and individuals able to have relative success doing that, so I cannot consider real free will as a given for now.
But we are digressing from the topic!…
>the question is still valid. Why is there something instead of nothing?
I don’t think there is an answer to that question that will ever satisfy you,… unless you are somehow biological or cultural wired to recognize one as the right one. If I present you a cause-effect answer, you are entitled to ask the same over the causes. If instead I choose a purpose based answer - like that there is something for the sake of a single atom, the sake of mosquitoes existence, or for the possibility of doing the question - the question will be transferred to the purpose, the “why’s” and “who’s”. Ultimately, human culture offers the God answer, conveniently endowed with unreachable motives by definition (along Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc)… a way to say, “don’t ask anymore”. It’s funny but physics has the same at time zero of the cosmological big-bang theory: a singularity, where all understanding breaks.
Can a question be considered a valid one, if there is no answer which will ever satisfy it? That we are able to formulate it, is not proof of reasonably. Take math for example, Godel theorem show us that there is always statements which cannot be judged at all. The way to deal with them is to choose to take them as granted… allowing judgment to a lot more of other previously statements alike as consequence. There is no question about the “why” in this, since the choosing is free. We face a similar problem if we search recursively the meaning of words in a dictionary: eventually we complete the full circle. Some words, axioms or primitives, must be known for start. I believe your “something” concept is best confronted if considered like that. It exists and that’s all. Pursuit it and you’ll ran after your tail (I know that from harsh experience; same questions are futile to pursuit. I compliment you if you are an existentialist, it is a good choice. Better if I had take it too).
...
João, the question is still valid. Why is there something instead of nothing? Of course I couldn’t ask the question if I didn’t exist. What difference does that make?
When I talk about being separate from the world, I’m talking about the objective observations of consciousness aware of itself. Do you accept the reality of free will? If you don’t then Nothing I say will make sense to you. Free will is the given in my view of the world. Anyway, we may be saying the same thing, but I’m not sure.
Why so much resistance to the idea that math might be able to explain us? If we loose sight to where goes math when it tries to deal with phenomena similar to life and alike, doesn’t that open the possibility that it may explain it, but in ways that will be hard to follow, at least now? Or even, ever?
Also, “my” world is far from mechanical, quite the opposite. The clock conception of the world is outdated. Physics now is more like a fairy tale, where there are places where time flows differently, and someone can found itself teleported through a wall. Construct a clock and you will obtain certain results, construct another exactly equal and you will obtain a different result, never the exact same. It’s like as if matter/math/reality has a will of its own. All that, is encoded in the new exact sciences, age old more than a century, but still hard to understand. What we have seen from them it’s very promising but there is still huge chunks of it unchartered, where we are in the dark. And we don’t find holes in the dark. But “Mechanical”, the universe is not.
Now, to answer you questions:
- Why is there something instead of nothing?
Why should be nothing? Could we exist if there was nothing only? Your question can only be made if there is something, so, if there is something instead of nothing maybe is only for the sake of the possibility of that question.
- What am I?
Do you feel you are a different person from one year ago?
- What was I a hundred years ago?
Exactly the same.
- What will I be in a hundred years?
Exactly the same
- How can I observe the world unless, in some sense, I’m separate from it.
Much more tougher question. You are not separated from the universe as any drug-induced altered reality will show you. Instead, I think you are after something more harder to deal than life: self-Conscience. Self-Awareness.
Sorry for the terse answers, but 2000 chars box of text are unfit to more.
João, it doesn’t matter if our presence increases overall entropy. That just reinforces my point. Life is different, and human life is extraordinarily different. If our presence increases entropy it is because we are unique entities. we are, through our free will, separate from the world. We can do things that alter that world, and its appointed path, because of free will. Mathematics isn’t a world in itself. It’s a means of explaining some of our world. Each new discovery requires the math to be changed. And the math doesn’t explain us. It never will. It has nothing to do with us and it never will. Something else is going on.
This mechanical view of everything doesn’t come close to answering the important questions. These questions can’t be ignored just because they are difficult. you can try to explain the Universe without confronting them but there will always be something missing. A hole in the equation. So rather than talking about the 2º thermodynamic law, try answering some of these questions.
Why is there something instead of nothing?
What am I?
What was I a hundred years ago?
What will I be in a hundred years?
How can I observe the world unless, in some sense, I’m separate
from it.
The objection some people have to your completely mechanical view of the progression of life is that they know you’ve left out the most important part. They are not wrong. I don’t agree with their solutions but I recognize that they do understand the questions.
...
This is an example of simple concepts with hidden complexities in it. It is predicable from a mechanical point of view, but unpredictable to us because we can’t follow it, as we don’t have the intuition to do that. It is also something we are learning to expect when there are multiple elements interacting in a system, even if ruled by simple laws. What I’m saying is that the math ruling the overall result of interactions between many agents is hard and of unexpected results. And nothing beats the universe in the number of agents it can put to play, even on a small area. If it baffle us is because some of us are used to expect from exact sciences, clear and satisfying answers, but here, we are in realms where we cannot easily follow the answers or imagine shortcuts to it. And more intriguing, considering the number of possibilities allowed by the interactions, we witness sometimes the emergence of structures and organization. Should we not expect complete chaos instead? Actually, perhaps not. Structure is a recognized concept, and so, we will associate it primarily to forms we find a lot and learn to recognize. If a system favors certain forms, those will be our concept of structure and recognized as such. Anyway, what can be more abundant than a form which replicates itself? In the moment we have one of those, able to replicate at a faster rate than it is destroyed, it is condemned to exist forever. Life is perhaps just that.
(and no, we are not that different from other things in the universe. It’s common to think us out of reach from the 2º thermodynamical law, but our presence and actions in the universe produces entropy faster than otherwise. Nor are the universe clockwork predictable while we are not: with the advent of quantum mechanics and the mechanical chaos, exact predictability became a mirage to everything).
...
This is an example of simple concepts with hidden complexities in it. It is predicable from a mechanical point of view, but unpredictable to us because we can’t follow it, as we don’t have the intuition to do that. It is also something we are learning to expect when there are multiple elements interacting in a system, even if ruled by simple laws. What I’m saying is that the math ruling the overall result of interactions between many agents is hard and of unexpected results. And nothing beats the universe in the number of agents it can put to play, even on a small area. If it baffle us is because some of us are used to expect from exact sciences, clear and satisfying answers, but here, we are in realms where we cannot easily follow the answers or imagine shortcuts to it. And more intriguing, considering the number of possibilities allowed by the interactions, we witness sometimes the emergence of structures and organization. Should we not expect complete chaos instead? Actually, perhaps not. Structure is a recognized concept, and so, we will associate it primarily to forms we find a lot and learn to recognize. If a system privilege certain forms, those will be our concept of structure and recognized as such. Anyway, what can be more abundant than a form which replicates itself? In the moment we have one of those, able to replicate at a faster rate than it is destroyed, it is condemned to exist forever. Life is perhaps just that.
(and no, we are not that different from other things in the universe. It’s common to think us out of reach from the 2º thermodynamical law, but our presence and actions in the universe produces entropy faster than otherwise. Nor are the universe clockwork predictable while we are not: with the advent of quantum mechanics and the mechanical chaos, exact predictability became a mirage to everything).
David, I swore to you I didn’t think you were trying to slide religion through the back door… You didn’t stroked me as doing that. Instead, I thought you were searching what others have been searching too, although from another angle: the question they ask is, how can physics and mathematics imply us?
Do you know Conway’s Game of life? It’s a simplest “game” played by steps, a bunch of squares which color, black or white, depends of its former color and the number of blacks surrounding it in the previous step. The rules are simple, yet, the overall evolution of the squares’s colors can be very complex and structured. Amazingly, we can paint there moving forms, forms that reproduce others, forms which appears to be alive. It is very difficult to predict what is going to happen in the game.
...
João, as I said before, Evolution is a fact. The details of how it came about are postulated in theories that may be all or partially true. But something is missing from the mix. Things are implied or taken for granted that are not articulated. It’s like trying to describe the workings of an internal combustion engine without knowing about electrical sparks or the flammability of gasoline. It’s not enough to know that living things fight to survive without adequately explaining why they fight to survive. Why does life strive for complexity when everything else does just the opposite? What am I? Why is there something instead of nothing? These are all important questions, more important than the details of evolution. When I mentioned a will to life you seemed to think I was trying to slide religion through the back door. It’s not so. Nothing that exists can be described as supernatural. If it exists then it’s natural. It’s part of nature. You and I are not supernatural beings. And yet we, and our capabilities, do not seem to be implied by mathematics or physics. We seem to live in a clockwork universe where everything is predictable except life and, especially, us. The entire structure follows the rules except us. Something else is going on. Thinking about the ‘something else’ may not be science but it is not religion either. Speculating about a will to life, a ghost in the machine, or any other explanation about why things are as they are, is something we each have to do. Accepting a traditional religion is one way to put the problem to bed. That wouldn’t be possible for me. I need answers anchored in reality. I hope I will eventually make a separate peace with these questions, realizing, of course, that my conclusions will have no validity to anyone except me.
...
Your comment about Darwinists is not fair. Strictly speaking, a Darwinist believes in random variations in offspring which relative frequencies are filtered by natural selection, leading to population divergences. If one population is split in two non-crossbreeding ones, the divergences of the two may differ until the point they may be considered two different species. This is the essential Darwin conceptual scenario, is very elegant and DOES NOT EXCLUDE other evolution options. For example, culture is today considered part of life in a broader sense, and it appears obvious that its evolution is through inheritance of acquired characteristics (more exactly, through childhood education or parental example). Another, many baby mammals eat adults feces to reconstitute their intestinal life, without which, they would be dead. Their content falls clearly in the category of acquired characteristics and they are more or less passed from progenitors to offspring. There are also virus infections which left genetic material ready to be reproduced in the infected organism. And of course, any unicellular being transmits only “acquired characteristics” in life. These are all components of life and as such, they taint its evolution as well. There is nothing wrong with the concept of the “inheritance of acquired characteristics”, the problem is its supporting mechanisms. Classically, “inheritance of acquired characteristics” is associated to Lamarck, which proposed that evolution cames from body modifications in life being passed to offspring… the classical example of the giraffe straining its neck, adult body plasticity mapped onto the embryonic development. Only, there is no discernible way how that can be done at all. Can you think of any? That’s precisely the kind of problem where random mechanisms combined with natural selection excels. In fact, they are so good that they have been used to find solutions in other difficult problems like...designing airplanes.
Page 1 of 3 : 1 2 3 >