Further Thoughts on Evolution
A month or two ago Jim Manzi dropped a link in the comments here to his dispute with Jerry Coyne on evolution. Here was Manzi’s original salvo, here’s Coyne’s response, and then Manzi answers again.
They key point in all of this is that Manzi was not denying, say, that all existing life forms have a common ancestor. Rather, he was pointing out that Coyne (and many others discussing the “findings” of evolution) take these results and then derive a far more sweeping conclusion, having to do with the “meaning” or “significance” of it all, particularly its relationship to common religious or spiritual attitudes.
To epitomize what I mean, here’s an excerpt from Manzi’s second piece:
In my post, I said that Coyne claimed in his review that “evolution through natural selection demonstrates that there is no divine plan for the universe. Coyne, in his reply to me, says this about it:
[Coyne:] Wrong! What I have said repeatedly is that there is no evidence for a divine plan for the universe.
Well, here is the first paragraph of Coyne’s review [of another writer’s book], which I quoted in my post [Bold added by Manzi]:
[Coyne:] Over its history, science has delivered two crippling blows to humanity’s self-image. The first was Galileo’s announcement, in 1632, that our Earth was just another planet and not, as Scripture implied, the center of the universe. The secondand more severelanded in 1859, when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, demolishing, in 545 pages of closely reasoned prose, the comforting notion that we are unique among all species, the supreme object of God’s creation, and the only creature whose earthly travails could be cashed in for a comfortable afterlife.
He doesn’t say that there is no evidence for it, but that Darwin demolished this notion.
As I say, this beautifully illustrates what happens all the time in these debates: An atheist familiar with evolutionary biology will say things like, “The findings of Galileo and Darwin destroyed the Christian’s notion of self-importance” and then when a Christian objects, the atheist will retreat to, “Oh I never said you couldn’t believe in God, what’s your deal? We’re talking about mechanical properties here; there’s no philosophical ‘meaning’ involved. Don’t you understand the boundary lines between science and religion?”
So in conclusion, it is NOT correct for people to say things like, “Murphy denies evolution.” (I don’t see that anymore on my Wikipedia page. Now it appears that my career consisted of 50% writing some books and testifying to Congress, and 50% betting David R. Henderson that there would be double-digit inflation. I guess as with organisms, so too with Wikiepedia entries: I can only hope for incremental improvement.)
Rather, when I write on evolution as it’s discussed in the public arena in the United States, I am pointing out that the atheist/agnostic commentators often smuggle in a lot more than they are admitting, perhaps than they are even realizing.
SO,
Will mankind evolve past central banking? Or will only a few us continue to be 1 in a million, with the keen perception required to realize the subtle institutionalized theft and slavery happening every second of our existence?
Watch this video to test your personal evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0&feature=player_detailpage
Bob Murphy believes there will be double digit inflation, therefore he must believe that evolution is impossible!
Inflation is money base expansion beyond demand. There is much more than double digit inflation.
Have everyday prices went up? Sure, shrinkage, inferior quality, water injected meat. Yes not double digit price increase but there has been quite a bit, especially when you look at essentials as portion of budget and its reflect on discretionary income.
Where is the real inflation? Follow the currency. Collectibles and other expensive things have quadrupled in price. So is just goes to show you money base induced price increases do not always end up at the consumer level. Wait till you make more money and try to purchase something of real value, you will feel the inflation reaper…
But Bob, look at what Coyne said. ” the comforting notion that we are unique among all species, ”
That really has been destroyed. We are, post darwin, emphatically animals, part of the same family, with the same underlying mechanisms. You, Callahan, and Keshav can stick to your bizarre notion that human souls existed long before human bodies evolved for them to use, but science is pretty clear here. We evolved our capacities just as did every other species. There is no evidence for anything else.
And with that goes the notion of “special object” status. Note what goes is the notion. A notion is a general understanding or belief about something, vague in detail. Destroying its under pinnings does dispatch a notion. Coyne’s wording is clear enough: the notion is what is demolished. (think about it, he wording can only be about ideas, not reality. He said demolished, how can the actual truth be demolished? But conceptual frameworks can be.)
In short, coyne said NOTIONS were destroyed. That is within the ambit of claims about evidence and rational basis for belief.
We are unique.
Look, a lot of people not actually improving life through biology can talk for hours about what they imagine others who are might be doing it. No other animals are this bored.
But we are unique Ken B. Evolution has not actually destroyed that notion.
We are not the same as any other animal, and so by definition we are unique. We have a nature unlike any other animal on the planet. Sure, you can point to similarities, but those similarities do not exhaust us. They are incomplete descriptions of us. We find similarities between ourselves and other animals only because we know the meaning of uniqueness and non-similarity. Without uniqueness, we couldn’t even sense or understand similarities.
It actually is neither necessarily “comforting” nor necessarily “discomforting” for a person to understand themselves as unique. Some people are terrified of it, others are comforted by it. It depends on their philosophical convictions.
Major_Freedom, first of all what makes you think that animals are not capable of Misesian action? Second of all, I’ve asked you this in previous threads but haven’t gotten a satisfactory answer: how can you be a materialist and yet believe that human behavior is inexplicable in terms of particle-level explanations? Physics tells us that if you have an interacting system of N particles, then the behavior of that system is completely explainable in terms of the behavior of each particle and the interaction between each adjacent pair of particles. So how can the human body be any different?
” Physics tells us that if you have an interacting system of N particles, then the behavior of that system is completely explainable in terms of the behavior of each particle and the interaction between each adjacent pair of particles.”
No, science says all biological systems are causally dependent on lower levels materialist systems, but may have higher level emergent properties:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/09/strong-reductionism-failed-in-natural.html
http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2014/02/reductionism-does-not-succeed-even-for.html
Keshav,
I hold a compatibilist view of the world. That free will and determinism co-exist, and, relatedly, that materialism and idealism co-exist.
For we humans, I do not think it is necessary to conclude from us being composed of material atoms, that we must therefore be explainable and coherently identifiable as being past causally determined. I hold that emergent properties arise out of paeticles that cannot be fully explained in terms of those particles in isolation.
Physics does not in fact tell us nor does physics prove that a system of N particles is FULLY explainable in terms of the individual particles. SOME physics MODELS assume it, yes, but the fact that physicists are compelled to deal with probabilities, means that my theory is not refuted.
Your understanding of physics is unfortunately flawed.
Keshav,
Regarding uniqueness…
Humans are more than just actors Keshav. If you find other animals that act, it doesn’t mean humans can no longer be understood as unique. We are more than ANY similarity you can identify in other beings. Because of that, we are unique.
Going further, each individual human is unique. The class of humans is unique, and each human is unique. You are more than a man, and more than your name. If “man” and “Keshav” fully explained you, then you would have a perfect clone of yourself somewhere in the world, who is also a “man” and also named “Keshav.”
When people say your name Keshav, they are referring to the unique you, not just anyone named Keshav. Same thing by calling you a man. They are not saying you are just any man, they are saying you are you and the you is a man.
What you are actually trying to do by seeking to be fully explained in terms of other beings, is, whether you realize it or not, is seeking to destroy your own uniqueness, which is to say you are attempting to be reabsorbed into the uniqueness of reality. A Russian mathematician, can’t recall the name, once wrote an article about socialism being based on an unconscious desire to die. To join a collective and destroy the schism between separateness in human existence. Many people do this without knowing it.
We are unique in the same sense sea urchins and ferrets are, yes. Each species is unique. We have evolved certain capacities for information processing.
I think what Major_Freedom is trying to say is that we’re unique in that “we know the meaning of uniqueness and non-similarity”, and that that’s a consequence of humans being able to “act” in the Misesian sense.
I believe I mentioned certain capacities for information processing.
Well, I think Major_Freedom means more than information-processing. I think he means that some act of fundamentally irreducible free will is required for genuine understanding.
Oh I agree he thinks that. I’m too kind to accuse him of it is all.
🙂
Keshav,
Sorry for not being more clear. To know that other actors exist is not necessarily an identification that we are not unique. We are more than actors. If we learn of alien actors, it wouldn’t mean we’re learning of just more humans. Those aliens would be more than actors. We, and they, would be unique. The similarities between us would not fully explain you or humanity.
To be clear, I believe that the soul has always existed. But at some point souls were endowed upon certain collections of particles, interacting with them in certain ways that proved useful to the survival of those systems, so those systems evolved in such a way as to maximize the survival advantage obtained in the interaction with the soul. And it’s not like humans have souls and other creatures with analogous biological functions don’t. Hindus don’t think that the soul is exclusive to humans. We think that most if not all animals have a soul. Unlike Christians, we don’t actually think that humans are special in a way that other animals are not.
In any case, I agree with you larger point, which is that Coyne wasn’t talking about destroying a fact (which is impossible), he was just talking about destroying the evidence that previously supported a belief.
But the evidence does not necessarily suggest only one belief.
He certainly did not destroy the evidence either.
“Destroying its under pinnings does dispatch a notion.” If only that were true! Notions are more persistent than that.
Pre-evolution theory, what actually underpinned the notion that Man is the supreme object of God’s creation? Is it really much different post evolution? One can still presume to be the supreme object of god’s creation, just that he did it through evolution. The notion is weakened, but not demolished.
“But Bob, look at what Coyne said. ” the comforting notion that we are unique among all species, ”
That really has been destroyed.”
No, Ken. The fact that, say, Napoleon was born like other men would in no way impact a claim “Napoleon is unique among men.”
You are claiming that importance = geneology. That is complete nonsense.
That’s a prevarication Gene. We could be unique for lots of reasons, but unique here is just short hand for seperately created, apart from the rest of creation, 6 days, a different essence.
Sya you refute Bob on fractional reserve banking, and I say “gene demolished Bob’s notion of banking.” What would you say to MF when he pops up and says “Nonsense, Bob believes the 5/3 bank in Memphis is open Saturdays, that’s part of his notion of banking.”
Ken B. please go re-read what he actually wrote:
Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, demolishing, in 545 pages of closely reasoned prose, the comforting notion that we are unique among all species, the supreme object of God’s creation, and the only creature whose earthly travails could be cashed in for a comfortable afterlife.
Coyne didn’t say, “If you thought humans were special because of the Genesis account, then he demolished that notion.”
No, Coyne said Darwin demonstrated that we can’t get into heaven unless slugs can too. That’s a pretty strong claim.
Technically speaking, isn’t every species unique among all other species?
Imagine Coyne had wriiten this:
“Demolishing the creation stories of the Bible, and the Koran, and so gutting the pretenses based on them, including the comforting notion we are apart from and in essence above the animals.”
You guys are twisting the word unique, because Coyne never denied we were unique and nor have I. Many did see us as unique *because god made us especially*. Well that basis for believing us unique is what Coyne is refering to. We weren’t made especially. We were made the way slugs and bonobos were.
Ken B. wrote:
You guys are twisting the word unique, because Coyne never denied we were unique and nor have I.
No Ken, we aren’t arguing about the word “unique.” Rather, we’re all arguing about the phrase “demolished the notion that.”
Ken, suppose I said, “According to the Bible, God created the world in a literal week, and murder is wrong.”
Would you say, Ken, that Darwin demolished the notion that murder is wrong?
I have to stop this now. You surely understand what we’re saying, and are just arguing to be a pain.
Bob, I’m almost certain that Coyne does not actually believe that Darwin’s theory is dispositive in any way concerning who will or won’t go to heaven. If anything his wording was just imprecise.
Keshav:
Bob, I’m almost certain that Coyne does not actually believe that Darwin’s theory is dispositive in any way concerning who will or won’t go to heaven.
OK, but all I have to go on are his words. He wasn’t “imprecise” as you claim. He shouldn’t have been talking about the afterlife at all. He should have said, “Humans aren’t unique by virtue of their ancestry or origin, as some believers in the Bible may have thought.” But instead he just said flat-out they’re not unique, and then to be sure we got the full brunt of Darwin’s implications he started talking about the afterlife.
Keshav, do you not see how all of this epitomizes what I’m talking about in the post? Believers in Darwinian theory make all sorts of incredibly sweeping claims, then walk them back without admitting that they are doing so, and in fact get huffy with the critic for “misunderstanding” them.
No Bob I wouldn’t. If you said however murder is wrong BECAUSE (insert claim) and Darwin destroyed the claim then I would say Darwin demolished your reason.
And that’s what Coyne is clearly doing. Two blows to pride based on fancies, is the para context. He’s talking about destroying the fancies, ie notions.
He wasn’t “imprecise” as you claim. He shouldn’t have been talking about the afterlife at all. He should have said, “Humans aren’t unique by virtue of their ancestry or origin, as some believers in the Bible may have thought.”
I think there is a reason he brought up the afterlife. I think he was trying to say “People used to think that humans are unique in their capacity to enter heaven because they are unique in their origins. But science has demolished the notion that humans are unique in their origins, so it’s demolished that reason for the belief.”
By the way, I don’t actually disagree with your larger point about the arguing tactics of a lot of atheists.
Fair enough Keshav; there’s no way we can get inside his mind to know what he “really meant” to say. I happen to believe that Coyne thinks Darwin really has demonstrated something that should make humans stop feeling so special compared to slugs.
Look, let me put it like this: Surely there IS something to the claim that Darwin’s work rattled traditionalist theists. If there weren’t, then why would so many Christians freak out about it?
So I’m not trying to be coy on the reverse side, but I hope you would do me the return favor. I don’t think Coyne slipped with his words, I think he meant what he wrote, and then backtracked without admitting it when Manzi called him out on it.
Bob, I think what Coyne meant is “Darwin demolished the notion that we are unique among all species and the only creature whose earthly trevails could be cashed in for a comfortable afterlife BECAUSE we’re the supreme object of God’s creation.” He thinks that science has demolished the claim that we’re the supreme object of God’s creation, because he interprets the claim as saying that God did something special when he created Man.
So what Coyne is saying is that Darwin demolished a reason for believing certain doctrines, like the uniqueness of Man in going to heaven. He’s not saying that those doctrines are necessarily or that there aren’t other valid reasons for believing them. He’s just saying that a reason that some people used to believe them is no longer valid.
are necessarily wrong*
Well that’s what I thought I was saying, but apparently I was just arguing to be a pain. The things you learn on the world wide web.
Bob does this a lot, assumes his opponents know he’s right but won’t say it.
Kaul Prugman explains why he thinks hyper inflation cures cancer. Mob Burphy refutes his claims in detail.
Is it fair to say that “Prugman’s notion that hyper inflation has special curative powers for cancer was demolished”?
Was any actual fact about reality “demolished”?
Not only do all ‘living organisms’ (whatever that means) have a common ‘ancestor’, but every piece of matter does as well. There is no difference in terms of moral value between a ‘human’ and a drop of ocean. But of course we do not want to believe that, so though we have destroyed religion, we come up with secular humanism so we can delay the adoption of additional inconvenient truths.
A single common ancestor that is the beginning of all life on Earth is actually not required in the theory of evolution by natural selection.
It is possible for life to arise in more than one location on Earth, and from those multiple locations, the genes mutate which results in new organisms over time all around the world. In other words, life as we know it could have originated with 12 original organisms that each arose independently around the world. Maybe there was a single organism among those twelve that was relatively strongest in being able to procreate and expand.
Out of curiosity, do you not believe in a single common ancestor?
I don’t know. I don’t think there is enough evidence.
It is not required by natural selection, no. It seems the only answer compatible with the uniqueness of the genetic code.
What do you mean by the uniqueness of the genetic code? Do you mean the uniqueness of the human genome? What does that have to do with whether any two given species have a common ancestor?
Huh?
The genetic CODE.
The fact that rna and dna use a set of three letter codons. That AAA is lysine in you and fungi. These are not requirements of evolution. 4 letter codons or a different codon tablle are perfectly possible as far as we know.
Sorry, I thought you were referring to what was encoded, not the coding scheme. Yes, it’s hard to imagine that exact coding scheme arising independently in different places. But isn’t it conceivable (though probably unlikely) that after DNA and the associated helping molecules all came into existence, they assembled themselves into multiple primordial single-celled organisms, rather than just one organism that split into multiple?
Certainly it’s conceivable. But even then, unless it happened multiple times leading to the same code each time there must have been a narrowing to one small population, leaving a common ancestor.
Ken B, no, what I’m talking about is having multiple organisms after the formation of the code. The codon table is after all just a result of the molecular structure of DNA’s helping molecules (particularly the ribosomal molecules). So couldn’t you have had a lot of DNA strands and DNA helping molecules of the same structure (and thus the same codon table), assembling themselves into multiple single-celled organisms?
We are talking the same thing. You still end up with a common ancestor (or bunch) of everything alive now, or some remarkable duplication.
Well, I’m talking about one code source producing multiple organisms. You seem to be talking about multiple code sources all producing the same code, each producing an organism, which I agree is completely implausible.
Oh you mean something like self replicating clay formations dictating the code and so ‘life’ could arise multiple times, the contraint on the code coming from whatever the precursor mechanism is?
Possible I suppose. Seems a stretch.
Not really. More than one life form can arise out of inorganic material in separate locations, self-replicate, volve, and then before the gene codes becomes too different to replicate through mating, the subsequent beings reproduce through mixing genetic code, such that new life form arise, evolve, and the surviving fossils only show a single genetic code as the originator.
To put it crudely, two independently arising life forms can arise with almost identical coding, which makes it reasonable to conclude, via the evidence, that a single genetic code started it all.
Just spitballing here…
“Living organisms” means carbon based. Water is H20, no carbon in there. We do not share a common ancestor with the ocean.
Characteristics of carbon as a basis for life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-based_life#Characteristics_of_carbon_as_a_basis_for_life
I’m not sure of anyone who defines ‘living organisms’ that way. Plastic is carbon based, and shares a common ancestor as it was created from the remains of such ‘living organisms’ from millions of years ago. And we are made up of 50-60% water ourselves.
Why evolution is just a fairy tale:
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-reasons-why-evolution-is-just-a-fairy-tale-for-adults
Whatever happened to not bearing false witness?
QUOTE: “When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world come up totally blank.”
The above statement is a lie. Most adults would point to the bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics as evidence for the theory of evolution.
Scott, you violated the 10 Commandments by posting that link.
I think the majority of adults probably don’t even know about antibiotic-resistant bacteria or what causes them.
That is natural selection, not popularly construed evolution. So that requires a very broad definition of the word “evidence” as no Christians I know would deny basic heritability. Do you know what “lie” means?
“The genes for antibiotic resistance are ancient as are the antibiotics”
Are you starting to get the picture of why some of us think you guys are arrogant ignorant hacks?
I could provide you wit a much better opinion but I won’t.
That page claims that there are no transitional fossils demarcating transitions between different species. What about all these?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Is there a reason why it claims that are none?
Is there a reason?
Stock FA answers:
1 Action
2 God
3 Statist troll!
That doesn’t work, because I use 1and 3 all the time, but not 2.
I like this one
“1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.”
With proofs like that, who needs enemas?
Indeed. Yet that basically is the line peddled here repeatedly. One commenter here, using his computer connected to the internet, posted a comment saying computers do not communicate.
Yes, the commenter used his computer as a means to communicate with others.
You two need to make clear how you are each defining “communication.”
1. Some folks think concepts such as “information”, and “language”, are concepts that presuppose the presence of an understanding, or mind, and have no coherent meaning without understanding being present.
2. Other folks think such concepts can be understood coherently without having to include any presence of understanding.
Often times 1. is misused where it is suggested that the early universe, in order to have an existential reality, must have a consciousness present at that time. But all 1. really says is that all of our thought presupposes understanding, not that all of that which is thought has its own, or requires at the time and place, an understanding different than our own.
The idea of pure thought, of thought freed from the shackles of corporeality and of epistemology, we call “Ego”, “God”, “Perfection”.
Plants communicate via pheromones. I think this is very common usage and few would disagree.
If I use my computer to communicate with someone else, then I think it more correct to say that I have communicated, not the computer. In the process my computer communicated various aspects which are unknown to me, but necessary for the interaction to occur (IP addresses perhaps). So the computers communicate as well as the people, but they communicate different things.
For communication to occur, there must be some potential for a response in the recipient. This works for plants, so I don’t see why it does not for computers.
Exactly! The insistence that evolution and creation must be mutually exclusive beliefs is what causes all the damage. This insistence comes as much from those without faith as those with. The “evolution not religion” crowd believe not only do they have the intellectual high ground but the moral high ground as well, the first amendment being their evidence for the latter. Another great example of progressives embracing diversity in all things except thought.
Evolution and the Bible’s creation story are mutually exclusive.
That’s fine for you Joe, Less so for me I’m afraid. The only thing that would cause a problem would be for one of us to insist the other change his approach to either the Bible or to evolution. If that is your intention toward me you need to make as argument that is a little more dispositive.
What’s your approach to the Genesis creation account that renders it consistent with evolution?
You redefine the wording in the Bible to become consistent with evolution and science.
For example, you ignore the previous generations of Christians who defined a year AS A YEAR, and you start defining “6000 years” into “Biblical language meaning 13 billion years.”
I think Major Freedom is pretty close. I would state it this way: The specific details of scientific understanding are often in flux while the general principals of scientific understanding are pretty constant. It’s unfair to say that all of evolution is bunk because what we once thought was junk DNA now seems to have an important function. By the same token it’s also unfair to say all of Christian Religion is bunk because there was once a literal interpertation of Biblical text that we now have reason to rethink.
Well, what’s the interpretation of Biblical creation that you subscribe to, and how does it square with the current scientific understanding of evolution.
Keshav,
You wrote: “Well, what’s the interpretation of Biblical creation that you subscribe to..”
No, I don’t recall stating I subscribe to any particular interpretation of Gensis literal or otherwise. I’d be happy to discuss any particular fundamental incompatibility that you see if you will tell me what that incompatibility is.
Well, here’s two examples: the days seem to be demarcated by an evening and a morning, which suggests literal days, and the sun, moon, and stars are created after the earth and plants are created, which is contrary to what science tells us.
Keshav,
I fully agree that “days” and morning and evening don’t seem to make much sense if the sun has yet to come into existence. So, at the very least Genesis seems internally contradictory. A reading that attempts to attribute percise meaning to each word isn’t going to get me anywhere so I conclude I need a different interpertation. I’ll admit that both some(many?) believers and some non-believers will take issue with me on this me on this. I however am comfortable with a relaxed reading of the first chapetes of Genesis that would say simply that God created the universe, the sun the moon and the earth and all the cretures on the earth. At the end of his labors he rested. He would like us to rest every seventh day and reflect on his creations, the fruits of our own labors and the mysteries of life and the universe set before us. Yes, it’s a totally squishy read on my part. I’m assuming the end result and filling in the gaps as needed to get where I want to be. But, I have this question for you. If you can state “.. it wouldn’t be accurate to say “chemical properties cannot be recovered from quantum mechanical properties”, merely that we haven’t recovered them yet.” can’t I say “it wouldn’t be accurate to say a scientifically valid history of life can’t be recovered from the text of Genesis merely that we haven’t recovered it yet”?
Well, the difference is that there’s no inconsistency, or even appearance of inconsistency, between quantum mechanics and the presence of molecular structures that give rise to chemical properties. (At least when you have the molecule in an environment.) But in this case there appears to be an inconsistency.
In any case, your 1000-foot view of the creation account seems unconvincing to me, because why would there be all these specific details about firmaments and all that if they didn’t mean anything? I’m a Hindu, and I look into every line of our scriptures for wisdom and insight, because it’s presumably there for a reason.
Keshav,
The point of my paraphrase is that science is not immune to producing incomplete and apparently contradictory or paradoxical results. Quantum mechanics would have been in the dust bin long ago if the scientific standard was to toss the whole theory out at the first discovery of a contradiction. I don’t see a reason for holding religious belief to a different standard at least if the objective is probe the reconcilability of science and religion. I’m willing to adopt my 1000 foot view of Genesis while waiting for the contradictions to be resolved. My thousand foot view does not require the text of Genesis to be meaningless. It does require acceptance of the possibility that the meaning need not be readily apparent. I know very little about Hinduism. Do its scriptures contain no internal contradictions? My prior is that they must given their vastness.
Capt. J Parker:
“By the same token it’s also unfair to say all of Christian Religion is bunk because there was once a literal interpertation of Biblical text that we now have reason to rethink.”
OK, how much, or rather how many passages, of the bible have to be debunked by science in order for the Bible as such to be “bunk”?
I don’t recall saying that because the Bible is wrong on the 6000 years that the whole thing should be rejected.
Major,
Given that the foundational event of Christianity IS existentially at odds with ordinary experience and therefore at odds with science I don’t have an answer to your question. I am tempted to use Bob M’s words and claim that your question smuggles in the premise that science disproves religion and we are just haggling over the satisfactory level of rigor. I don’t accept that premise. Neither would I accept the premise that religion disproves science.
“Given that the foundational event of Christianity IS existentially at odds with ordinary experience and therefore at odds with science”
“I am tempted to use Bob M’s words and claim that your question smuggles in the premise that science disproves religion and we are just haggling over the satisfactory level of rigor. I don’t accept that premise.”
I don’t think those two statements jive with each other.
In the first part, you’re “smuggling in the premise” that science disproves statements from religious texts.
In the second part, you say you don’t accept that premise.
Major,
I said that science is at odds with the foundational event of Christianity not that it disproves it. If your prior is that events contradictory to scientific prediction have not and can not be observed then yes, for you science disproves the foundational event of Christianity but that, as far as religion is concerned, is not dispositive of a Christian God’s non existance, it’s just your prior.
OK fair enough Parker.
But it’s not an answer to only move the priors one step back. It isn’t turtles all the way down.
Major,
You are right of course. It’s not an answer. I think you helped me realize just how critically the whole religion / science debate hinges on ones priors. That I think was part of Bob Murphy’s point.
Equally destructive is the notion that spitting in the soup is incompatible with being a good waiter. The jobs I’ve lost …
Interesting analogy Ken. My limited imagination though, is having a hard time picturing someone who might derive any type of utility from having your saliva in their soup. If you lost your jobs for merely trying to perfect the culinary world by ridding it of the unenlightened concept saliva free soup then I say perhaps that is proof of an almighty spirit dispensing justice in the universe.
“We’re talking about mechanical properties here; there’s no philosophical ‘meaning’ involved. Don’t you understand the boundary lines between science and religion?””
-Coyne is one of the few scientists that does not think there are any boundary lines between science and religion. He is one of the strongest opponents of “accomodationism” of science to religion of any kind. He certainly does think there’s a “philosophical ‘meaning’ involved”.
I’m pretty sure it is impossible to conclusively prove that something does not exist by using empirical methods. All you can do is list the places you have looked, and note that you have not seen it yet.
After a while not finding anything, you might be discouraged and tempted to try something else in life, but that’s hardly conclusive proof of anything.
SILLY MAN: A lot of people used to think Macbeth is more special than a crossword puzzle, but Webster demolished that notion when he demonstrated in exquisite detail that both were simply combinations of letters.
MURPHY: That is a ridiculous non sequitur. That doesn’t follow at all.
KEN B.: No Bob, he didn’t say he had demonstrated something about reality, but merely that he demolished a notion. And he did; there is nothing more special about Macbeth than a crossword puzzle.
Your notion of notion shows notional understanding.
Well, then the guy’s point is psychological not biological.
Darwin has been use to change people’s notions or psychology about God and our place in the world. So what?
The question is wheter Darwin was right about biological history or some additions are in place. And I, like Augustine, am open to either answer.
People’s notions are psychological irrelevancies. The intellectual issue is biology, not politics.
It seemd like Darwin and the natural sciences have been use as political mascots against religious groups.
Shame on Dawkins and the like.
I meant Coyne’s point is irrelevant.
If you do not care about evidence, argument, reason, or consistency, then yes his point is irrelevant.
Sorry to break it to you but people’s notions are not equal to evidence.
People have the notion that Hoover was a FreeMarketeer but the evidence goes against that notion.
People gave the notion that before Columbus everybody thought the Earth was Flat. But the evidence goes against that notion.
Do you want more examples?
“People gave the notion that before Columbus everybody thought the Earth was Flat. But the evidence goes against that notion.”
Not true. Sure, many did, but not everyone. There is evidence that prior to Columbus’ life, people knew the Earth was round.
that is what I meant. People right now HAVE the notion that before Columbus everybody thought the Earth was Flat.
However there is evidence that Medieval Europe believe in a spherical Earth.
The evidence goes against contemporary people’s notions of Medieval thought.
So evidence and notions are not the same.
Sorry JNCU, you wrote “gave the notion” but I read “had the notion”. My bad.
No worry MF.
I actually thought it was going to come up awkward because I was writing in a hurry.
Bad luck we do not have time to just blog all day long. Looking forward to retirement. ( :
Bob, I think what Ken B is trying to say is that there was some evidence that was once believed to support the hypothesis that humans are special, and that that evidence was demolished. That does not mean that the hypothesis was wrong, just that the reason that some people believed it is no longer a valid reason for believing it.
Winner winner chicken dinner, as they say in these parts.
Humans aren’t special because they are the most adaptable…funny.
Ron Paul: I don’t believe in evolution
http://youtu.be/6JyvkjSKMLw
Ron Paul’s terrible argument against evolution
http://scienceskepticism.blogspot.com/2013/01/ron-pauls-terrible-argument-against.html
This reminds me of a Gary North book.
Sorry!
It is I think somewhat questionable to claim that the earth centered cosmos only made humans more important. The earth was also viewed as the lowest, least valuable place in the universe, aside from hell, which was below it., the place of physical change and impurity. If science did dethrone anything in the long run, it was the notion that there was a higher form of matter above us, since physics assumes that matter is more or less identical in all places of the universe.
Just to add something that I recall reading: Galileo stated that since the earth was no longer where it had been assumed to be, that man was now able to be elevated or saved from the lowest position. Other Copernicans were happy that the earth was now part of the rest of heaven and no longer the lowest, dirtiest place in the universe.
Sean
It is not questionable, it is just false that copernican cosmology brought humans down from a special place. I will try to get the exact quote, but for copernicus he was proving that the earth has its own light, that it was just as good as the other bodies in the cosmos.
The center of the cosmos was satan’s throne. So by taking the Earth away from the center, copernicus made humans more special. The closer to the center it was thought to be worse, not better.
The idea that in the Middle Ages the center of the cosmos was better is a Secular myth, like the Flat Earth myth.
Keshav, what’s your take on this?
“For example, methyl ether and ethanol share a Hamiltonian, the quantum mechanical description of their energetic properties. Nevertheless, they are very different molecules. Ethanol is extremely soluble in water, whereas dimethyl ether is only partially soluble in water. Ethanol boils at 78.4°C, while dimethyl ether boils at 34.6°C. Drinking ethanol leads to intoxication, while drinking dimethyl ether has no such effect. Given that quantum mechanics cannot tell us why a given collection of atoms will adopt one molecular structure (and set of chemical properties) or the other, Hendry argues that chemical properties cannot be recovered from quantum mechanical properties (1998, 2006b, 2010a).”
I haven’t read Hendry’s papers, but it is true that the way in which quantum mechanics gives rise to molecular structures is an unsolved problem in quantum chemistry. But it wouldn’t be accurate to say “chemical properties cannot be recovered from quantum mechanical properties”, merely that we haven’t recovered them yet. The chemical properties follow entirely from the molecular structure, so we just need to explain the molecular structure.
The standard view is that it arises from decoherence: a molecule in isolation would behave more analogous an atom in isolation, but in practice molecules are not in isolation, so interaction with the environment leads the quantum state to decohere in a very short amount of time, making it seem as if the molecule is just a classical configuration of atoms – one of the isomers studied in classical chemistry. See pages 26-28 of this paper by Wooley (pages 10-12 of the PDF) for a brief summary: tinyurl.com/woolley1991
So we already have an idea of what an explanation will probably look like: the molecule just seems like it’s in an ethanol state or dimethyl ether state depending on how it decoheres, but really it’s in neither of those states. We just need to iron out the details.
more analogous to*
I should add that chemistry is not my field; I study theoretical physics, so take what I’m saying with a.grain of salt.
Thanks. Quite helpful.
Tell me if you have any questions. I don’t know how much background you have in quantum mechanics, so I can try to explain anything you don’t understand in the paper or my explanation.
I know the basics, Hilbert spaces, Hamiltonians, I’ve seen a derivation of orbitals from scratch.
OK, but do you know about density matrices, decoherence, and the like?
Decoherence a bit non technically, density matrices no.
In fact Gene answers it himself in much the same way : “There are still reductionists who argue that chemistry in principle could be reduced to quantum mechanics. But if someone tells you the chemistry has been reduced to quantum mechanics, they have no idea what they are talking about.”
The game is given away in this example. “Water is only a collection of H2O molecules in its gas phase. Even the purest of liquid water will contain many hydrogen and hydroxyl ions. So even such a simple substance as water does not reduce to H2O.” To say that water reduces to H2O is not an example of reductionism but oversimplification. Nobody believes chemistry has been reduced to quantum mechanics.
He correctly points out the obvious that we have not yet calculated how everything works from individual quantum interactions, but this is not an argument against believing that complex systems are a sum of their parts.
“He correctly points out the obvious that we have not yet calculated how everything works from individual quantum interactions, but this is not an argument against believing that complex systems are a sum of their parts.”
It is no argument that complex systems are merely a sum of their parts, by casually saying “we have not yet calculated it”, the “yet” implying that it’s only a matter of time before the belief turns into certainty. Nor is it an argument to say “I believe this.”
Nobody believes chemistry has been reduced to quantum mechanics? That’s ridiculously false. There are many, Brian Greene and other string theorists for example, who believe that everything, every class of things, is reducible to vibrating strings along membranes.
There are radical reductionists in the world.
“That’s ridiculously false.” Do you think that Brian Greene would try to calculate an equilibrium constant by derivation from quantum mechanics? No, of course not. They believe that they are reducible to vibrating strings, not that we have yet been able to do so.
You are correct that use of the word “yet” implies that it will happen. This has not been demonstrated so I should not have said Yet. However I was not making a case for reductionism, just pointing out that the post fails to demonstrate the claim in the title that “reductionism does not succeed even for simple physical phenomena”.
I see no reason to doubt reductionism, since to introduce some other mechanism (other than the parts interacting) seems unnecessary. However, I am agnostic on the matter. Should some evidence come up I am happy to change my mind. The quantum world is strange enough, I won’t rule out some sort of interaction could occur that is not fully explained by the sum of the parts.
Harold you’re talking as if there is no evidence of emergent behavior. There is.
Plus, “parts interacting” cannot be the full explanation for why entities behave he way they do, because knowledge of that concept requires an understanding of parts interacting, and understanding cannot be reduced. It is pressupposed as a whole even in studies of how understanding works.
Economists study and talk about the categories of action, and neuroscientists study and talk about the parts of the brain.
In both cases, there is a presupposed, irreducible understanding of the categories and brain components.
“Harold you’re talking as if there is no evidence of emergent behavior. There is.” What evidence is there of fundamentally emergent behavior, behavior that can’t be explained in terms of a system’s constituent particles and their interactions?
“Plus, “parts interacting” cannot be the full explanation for why entities behave he way they do, because knowledge of that concept requires an understanding of parts interacting, and understanding cannot be reduced. ” Why can’t understanding be reduced?
“In both cases, there is a presupposed, irreducible understanding of the categories and brain components.” What makes you say that it’s presupposed as an irreducible whole?
“Harold you’re talking as if there is no evidence of emergent behavior. There is.”
I would be interested to see it. Properties “emerge” as complexity rises, but that does not mean the properties are not caused by the lower level interactions.
We may be at cross purposes here. I don’t believe we will get to the point where we can describe all properties in terms of fundamental interactions. It doesn’t make sense to do so. A concept as simple as gas pressure can be explained by individual molecular interactions, but we don’t plot each molecule, we derive the patterns and use gas equations. We could say pressure “emerges”, but it is explainable in terms of individual molecules even though we do not know exactly how each molecule moves. Whether or not we understand it, it may still be the case.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here too. I prefaced my response to your first sentence with the exact same “I think we’re talking at cross purposes” before I read the rest of your post. Funny.
I thought the dispute was over whether or not we can KNOW a particular entity’s nature by KNOWING the constituent components in isolation.
It looks like we’re now talking about whether everything can be known to take place through past events, i.e. cause.
Looks like we can agree on this one.
“Nobody believes chemistry has been reduced to quantum mechanics? That’s ridiculously false. There are many, Brian Greene and other string theorists for example, who believe that everything, every class of things, is reducible to vibrating strings along membranes.” Major_Freedom, you’re eliding a distinction here. Many people do indeed believe that chemistry is *reducible* to quantum mechanics, but that’s different from saying that chemistry has already been reduced to quantum mechanics. No one believes that, because there are still a few problems in quantum chemistry we haven’t solved, although we’re pretty close.
Keshav, you are confronting here a god of the gaps argument. No matter how successful reductionism proves there will always be gaps, the infinite being unreachable, and there will be Gene Callahan saying reductionism never succeeds.
Are there chemists not religiously committed who dispute that quantum theory is the fundamental explanation of chemistry, and that we just haven’t worked out the details yet?
Ken B:
You say God of the gaps, and I say a purely epistemological, non-theistic argument about a category of human thought.
Sure, I will readily concede that the gap gets smaller and smaller as humans learn about their own minds more and more. But just because we are walking forward along a path, it doesn’t mean we are going to reach an end where the gap between what humans know, and reality as such, is zero, meaning the abolition of the dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity.
Your faith that humans will eventually reach that point is not all that unlike theistic doctrine of reabsorption, or eschatology.
There’s an interesting ambiguity. A lot of people, me included, say “chemistry reduces to quantum mechanics”. Mostly that means reducible not reduced, but it also means reduced enough that reducible isn’t too much of a stretch.
Based upon the commentary rather than the subject, this is how I imagine the lot of you. Animals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lgOo8yEIPs
I am an atheist, but I admire and envy many Christians for their faith.
BTW, the Earth can still be the center of the universe.
Howzat? We are out on the rim of even our own Milky Way, let alone the universe.
Well, it goes like this: You can fix any spot in the universe, and everything else moves around it, perhaps not concentrically, but still.
Life evolved on earth. Who is to say that is not divinely inspired? It sure seems divine.
“Well, it goes like this: You can fix any spot in the universe, and everything else moves around it, perhaps not concentrically, but still.”
Benjamin fixes the spot at the Fed.
Cole
I am a Christian and I do not dany other forms of intelligent life. I just do not know if they exist I am agnostic in that topic.
Does anybody have any guess as to what humans will evolve to? Will it be physical or mental, maybe both? What is next an dhow long will it take?
Also is their any impediments to evolution? I have read that people smell each others cheeks, when securing genetically preferred mate, however things like makeup, cigarette smoke and booze corrupt this process. DO you think this is true and what would the long term result be?
Also, will socialism corrupt evolution? I mean genetically superior people use force to breed genetically inferior people. How does this fit into the theory of evolution?
The consistent Naturalist would make no meaningful distinction between mental and physical.
The mind is the brain for the Naturalist. And the brain is phisical.
I am not a Naturalist by the way.
Okay so the mind, brain and body are one therefore evolve together.
I am just wondering what evolutionist see for the future and if they notice any impediments and or corruption of natural selection?
Tangentially, many people come out against pit-bull bans, for many reasons but most of them say it is not the dog, it is the owner. Does this line of believing fly in the face of evolution? I always thought breeders practiced selective breeding, therefore predetermine the final result. Breed strong, angry, protective and impulsive with strong, angry, protective and impulsive for 5 generations, out pops the perfect killing machine.
Jus trying to wrap my head around both short term and long term evolution.
With selective breeding, like pitbulls, the effect is faster. Only angry dogs get to breed rather than angry dogs get to breed just .0001% more.
It’s like compound interest. Borrow $1 at any positive interest, never make payments, and eventually you owe a million. Caharging 100% a day and you get there a lot faster.
“Also, will socialism corrupt evolution? ” One could argue that nothing corrupts evolution, since everything is environment. If socialism results in selection for a particular trait, then that trait is the “fittest”.
We are currently in a benign environmental phase – a great many genotypes can successfully reproduce. This results in greater variety of gene combinations and of mutations. If times get tough, who knows which of those mutations and combinations will be best adapted to the new environment? I believe evolution works fastest when there are alternating periods of ease and stress.
Interesting point. Although isn’t the existence of a benign environment essentially a human creation that corrupts the process of evolution?
In other words – we have constructed a society that is no longer “survival of the fittest” and where (largely thanks to socialism), even if you are born with crippling disabilities, you are likely to survive and perhaps even to reproduce. The “weeding out” process has been dramatically slowed.
So certain traits that would be undesirable (say, laziness) in a 100% capitalist society where if you don’t work, you don’t eat, are no longer held against you in a modern socialist state where everyone gets free food no matter what?
“a society that is no longer “survival of the fittest” ” Whatever survives and reproduces is the fittest. Evolution moves on regardless. Your interpretation of “desirable” traits implies a purpose or progression, which as you say is not present in evolution.
It is possible that the human race will survive the coming space plague only due to a mutation in a lazy, crippled socialist.
“So certain traits that would be undesirable (say, laziness)” It is debatable how much of laziness is genetic.
Remember, evolution by natural selection does not necessarily imply progression.
Bravo!! It is hard for average Joe’s to understand that differentiation.
How would you define progress?
To be more happy than my past self.