"A Man's Best Friend is his Dogma"
The piece below was written in response to an article by an evolutionary ecologist about whether Darwin had, once and for all, explained the origin of life. Actually, it was more like his responding to my response to his article, and then me responding back to his response, or something like that. He suggested that I was really just a creationist looking to justify my personal dogma. I said “That dog doesn't hunt,” or should I say, “That dogma doesn't hunt--and I wasn't the one being dogmatic anyway, he was—and that my dogma could beat up his dogma any day!"
He argued that he could convince any open-minded person of the truthfulness of Darwinian evolution with a few good arguments and some well-drawn pictures of transitional forms. I suggested that with some well-drawn pictures I could make a half man/half badger seem reasonable, and besides, there were much bigger problems for the Darwinist than how amphibians became mammals. Before you can begin to adequately answer that question you have the problem of how non-living matter became living matter, or for that matter, where “matter” came from to begin with. And don’t get me started on the near infinite number of things that have to have taken place to make life possible, even in its simplest forms, such as the evolution of the earth, the sun, the atmosphere, gravity, the Milky Way, water, trees, weasels, and many other things which are absolutely necessary to get the ball rolling. Either way, I had no impact on his dogma, nor he on mine, which only proves my point, that some people can be really dogmatic!
This article is actually the second part of our debate. The first part you'll find in a "slightly" edited form elsewhere in this magazine. If you're interested, here's the link, it's humbly entitled "The Fight of the Century". http://www.weeklysouthernarts.com/the-fight-of-the-century.html It started with a discussion about the "Big Bang." Thus began my response to his response, which I call "You talking to me?" When you read it, make sure to use a deep, authoritative voice filled with self importance to achieve the necessary flavor.
He argued that he could convince any open-minded person of the truthfulness of Darwinian evolution with a few good arguments and some well-drawn pictures of transitional forms. I suggested that with some well-drawn pictures I could make a half man/half badger seem reasonable, and besides, there were much bigger problems for the Darwinist than how amphibians became mammals. Before you can begin to adequately answer that question you have the problem of how non-living matter became living matter, or for that matter, where “matter” came from to begin with. And don’t get me started on the near infinite number of things that have to have taken place to make life possible, even in its simplest forms, such as the evolution of the earth, the sun, the atmosphere, gravity, the Milky Way, water, trees, weasels, and many other things which are absolutely necessary to get the ball rolling. Either way, I had no impact on his dogma, nor he on mine, which only proves my point, that some people can be really dogmatic!
This article is actually the second part of our debate. The first part you'll find in a "slightly" edited form elsewhere in this magazine. If you're interested, here's the link, it's humbly entitled "The Fight of the Century". http://www.weeklysouthernarts.com/the-fight-of-the-century.html It started with a discussion about the "Big Bang." Thus began my response to his response, which I call "You talking to me?" When you read it, make sure to use a deep, authoritative voice filled with self importance to achieve the necessary flavor.
"You Talkin To Me"?
You wrote that I had no idea what the odds are for the "Big Bang," I agree, but neither does anyone else. I only stated the obvious, that the Big Bang is inexplicable, which requires a miracle to have any explanation at all. It's what scientists call "the singularity” meaning that it can't be explained, so it has to be a singular, one-time event. What does that mean, that if you have only one miracle it's OK, but any more than that and you'd better start taking up collections? That is, by the way, the primary scientific hypothesis for the beginning of the universe "And then....there was a miracle!" Simply substitute the word singularity for the word miracle and suddenly it becomes science. Man, who knew it was that easy. I always thought there was a wide chasm (as opposed to a narrow chasm) between science and religion. I guess I was wrong.
Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking, among others, have recently weighed in on the subject, offering massive speculation as probable cause for a self-starting universe, using the authority of science! That isn't science, its logical inference and speculation, taken well beyond the available evidence. It should be called speculative science at best, or philosophy, metaphysics, or even religion, but it certainly isn't hard science. I’m not trying to impugn Darwin, Hawking, Krauss or even the Theory of Evolution. That isn't hypocrisy on my part; it’s stating the facts and offering a counter balance to the one-sided argument that’s being made in the popular media.
As far as whether thirty transitional forms are sufficient to explain the evolution of species, which was your example, or a thousand, would depend on whether those thousand transitions were for a single species, which is what we should find. That’s accounting for an incomplete fossil record, the result of time and decay. Not a thousand “potential” transitions for an even larger number (millions) of species, representing a span of hundreds of millions of years. In that instance a thousand wouldn't qualify as a needle in a haystack! I used the word “potential” regarding transitional forms to make it clear that a transitional form is whatever scientists say it is—similar to the way in which they define a species.
A simple example would be the historical view of Neanderthal Man. Only a relative few decades ago, Neanderthals were seen as transitional ape-men. Most paleontologists now believe that they were fully human, with art and religious rituals and were able to interbreed with modern humans.
Let’s use criminology and the court of law as an example. You can have a mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing to a particular conclusion, but, in this case, you aren't trying to solve a single crime, you’re trying to solve millions of crimes (transitional fossils for millions of different living and extinct species), in which case, that mountain of evidence begins to look a lot smaller. I’m not arguing as a creationist any more than Hawking is arguing as an atheist.
Contrary to popular perception, we really aren't much closer to a realistic answer regarding the problem of origins in the macro/micro sense than people were in Plato’s time. The Epicureans believed that the universe was comprised of very tiny particles (atoms) and that matter was the product of these particles banging together creating or expanding existing matter. That was centuries before Christ and scientists are making essentially the same arguments today. We certainly have better and more refined theories, but aren't much closer to solving the problem than they were.
Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking, among others, have recently weighed in on the subject, offering massive speculation as probable cause for a self-starting universe, using the authority of science! That isn't science, its logical inference and speculation, taken well beyond the available evidence. It should be called speculative science at best, or philosophy, metaphysics, or even religion, but it certainly isn't hard science. I’m not trying to impugn Darwin, Hawking, Krauss or even the Theory of Evolution. That isn't hypocrisy on my part; it’s stating the facts and offering a counter balance to the one-sided argument that’s being made in the popular media.
As far as whether thirty transitional forms are sufficient to explain the evolution of species, which was your example, or a thousand, would depend on whether those thousand transitions were for a single species, which is what we should find. That’s accounting for an incomplete fossil record, the result of time and decay. Not a thousand “potential” transitions for an even larger number (millions) of species, representing a span of hundreds of millions of years. In that instance a thousand wouldn't qualify as a needle in a haystack! I used the word “potential” regarding transitional forms to make it clear that a transitional form is whatever scientists say it is—similar to the way in which they define a species.
A simple example would be the historical view of Neanderthal Man. Only a relative few decades ago, Neanderthals were seen as transitional ape-men. Most paleontologists now believe that they were fully human, with art and religious rituals and were able to interbreed with modern humans.
Let’s use criminology and the court of law as an example. You can have a mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing to a particular conclusion, but, in this case, you aren't trying to solve a single crime, you’re trying to solve millions of crimes (transitional fossils for millions of different living and extinct species), in which case, that mountain of evidence begins to look a lot smaller. I’m not arguing as a creationist any more than Hawking is arguing as an atheist.
Contrary to popular perception, we really aren't much closer to a realistic answer regarding the problem of origins in the macro/micro sense than people were in Plato’s time. The Epicureans believed that the universe was comprised of very tiny particles (atoms) and that matter was the product of these particles banging together creating or expanding existing matter. That was centuries before Christ and scientists are making essentially the same arguments today. We certainly have better and more refined theories, but aren't much closer to solving the problem than they were.
So, let’s take this notion of reason, extrapolated as reasonable doubt, as in a courtroom or in a science lab and begin there. We start with the hypothesis (the guess) and then we move forward, accumulating new evidence, which is a very good example of how knowledge "evolves" (there's that word). Evidence that we can interpret in the light of our original hypothesis. What do we find? Finding what we expect to find can either be the result of an honest, objective search or it can also be the very definition of prejudice. It becomes a case of the partisan finding what they expect to find, with like-minded folk agreeing because it reinforces their existing dogma. If both sides are earnestly seeking the truth, regardless of the outcome, they'll want all of the evidence to be brought out. If not, they’ll try to suppress any evidence that undermines their case.
Scientists, just like priests, politicians or bankers, are motivated by self-interest, as in, advancing career paths or financial reward in the form of salary increases or grants—which is why the scientific method is so important--and why lobbying the government in order to gain an advantage is always a problem. Neither science or religion should be the product of political consensus. That’s why asserting something as “true,” absent sufficient evidence (meaning enough facts so that we don’t have to make giant leaps in logic), requires humility, not certainty. I did, however, enjoy your suggesting that my use of a “little g” when spelling god was my one attempt at objectivity. Let me suggest that you might do likewise and try using a little "d” when spelling Darwin! Of course, that might make for bad spelling, but it would make for a more honest debate.
Mark Magula
Scientists, just like priests, politicians or bankers, are motivated by self-interest, as in, advancing career paths or financial reward in the form of salary increases or grants—which is why the scientific method is so important--and why lobbying the government in order to gain an advantage is always a problem. Neither science or religion should be the product of political consensus. That’s why asserting something as “true,” absent sufficient evidence (meaning enough facts so that we don’t have to make giant leaps in logic), requires humility, not certainty. I did, however, enjoy your suggesting that my use of a “little g” when spelling god was my one attempt at objectivity. Let me suggest that you might do likewise and try using a little "d” when spelling Darwin! Of course, that might make for bad spelling, but it would make for a more honest debate.
Mark Magula
|
|
|