Women

Women

Women

Women

Women

Women

The emperor has no clothes

Almost everyone has heard the children's story by Hans Christian Andersen entitled, "The Emperor's New Clothes". It is a very interesting story about human nature.  When the Emperor parades around in clothes that are invisible no one says anything because everybody thinks that if they cannot see the clothes that they are stupid, ignorant, or insane. . . or at least others will think that they are.  The farce continues until a child exclaims, "The Emperor has no clothes!"  

This paper deals specifically with the theory of evolution and the hold that this theory has taken upon the scientific community as well as the popular imagination.  The theory of evolution has become so popular and so pervasive that it is difficult for anyone to question it without being branded as, "ignorant, stupid, or insane."  The passion of those who hold such views testifies to their firm belief in evolution as "more than a theory."  So why don't I get it?   What is wrong with me?

Some might suggest that I am too biased by my upbringing or religious background to see the truth of the theory of evolution.  Certainly it is true that I am human, prone to bias.  But, at least I am aware of this and really do desire to know the truth - wherever it may lead.  

I am a firm believer in the scientific method and in its power to increase human knowledge of all knowable truth concerning the world outside the mind - to include "religious" ideas when those ideas make some sort of claim about some force acting on physical things around or within us with intelligent or deliberate intent.  

Interestingly enough though, the scientific method does not detect truth directly. The power of the scientific method comes from its ability to detect error, thereby limiting the places where truth may be found.  Since no theory is ever fully proven by the scientific method, no one should ever consider any theory or even "fact" above all question. When a theory or interpretation can no longer be questioned, it leaves the realm of science and moves into the realm of holy, untouchable, religious dogma.  Often the thought crosses my mind that scientists are just as fervent and religious in their thinking as any other church-going community. The only difference is the object of worship. 

I'm not saying that a little religious zeal is a bad thing - even for scientists.  Many truths are very important and should be defended.  However, human ideas of "truth" are not or at least should not be above all question.  In fact, truth is made all the more clear when it is challenged.  Why then does it seem like many scientists defend their ideas of naturalism and the theory of evolution as if their lives and very souls depended on it? The dedication of the scientific community at large to these ideas is generally no less dogmatic and passionate than the religious fervor of the most hardened sectarian fundamentalist.  And yet, the scientific method really does not support the use of any "a priori" assumptions when evaluating the potential truthfulness of any hypothesis or theory.  The position that the mindless non-deliberate processes of nature are the only types of potentially "natural" forces that can possibly be considered when it comes to explaining the origin and diversity of life on this planet is not a requirement of the scientific method, but is rather a philosophical position.  

It all boils down to what scientists define as "natural" verses "supernatural".  The funny thing is, scientists do theorize the involvement of intelligent minds all the time when it comes to forensic investigations or searches for extraterrestrial intelligence - since these intelligences would be "natural".  Why then is the origin of life any different?  Upon what basis are all considerations of the workings of an intelligent mind excluded, without any consideration whatsoever, when it comes to determining the origin and diversity of life on this planet? Isn't it at least theoretically possible that some very intelligent yet "natural" mind might have been behind the origin of life on this planet?  How is this possibility beyond the realm of scientific investigation?   

Consider the form of a humble amorphous rock.  Does its form give evidence of deliberate design over a mindless cause? Humans are in fact capable of designing amorphous rocks, but so are very lowly mindless randomly acting natural processes. The same is true if I were to walk by a house in the morning and see that it had a broken window. In this case I could quite rationally hypothesize either a mindless non-deliberate cause (i.e., a tree limb, strong gust of wind, hail from a storm, etc) or a deliberate intelligent cause (i.e., a robber, a kid with rock or pellet gun, etc).  However, if I were to walk by that same house later in the day and find that this same window had been repaired, how easy would it be for me to hypothesize a random mindless process as a cause? The same thing could be said for analyzing symmetrically intricate crop circles in England or a box of otherwise identical red and white marbles where all the red marbles are on the same side of the box.

This line of reasoning might seem fairly convincing if not for the fact that many scientists take on an, "a priori commitment to materialism."-  or at least what they define as materialism. What they really do is take on a commitment to an ultimately non-intelligent non-deliberate cause for everything that exists.  This is what is meant by the word "materialism".  The problem with this notion is that high level information systems, to include those that reach the level of "intelligent minds" do in fact exist and these systems are indeed capable of creative abilities that far exceed those of low-level randomly acting mindless forces of nature.  Why then do scientists assume, from the very start, that the ultimate cause of the phenomenon of "life" was, without question, non-deliberate?

Certainly one might conclude that the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of one position over another after extensive testing is done, but the scientific method necessitates no prior commitment to outcome of an intelligent vs. a non-intelligent cause, even an ultimate cause, before the outcome is actually tested.   Scientists do seem to agree on this point, and yet many of them still feel "forced by an a priori adherence to material [i.e., mindless or randomly acting] causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated."  Many go on to explain that "materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

And there it is - - Ultimately it is all about the concept of "God".   No answer can be "God probably did it" for a scientist, by definition, because God is defined as being non-materialistic or outside of Nature.  Therefore, scientists commonly argue that God, if he even exists, is beyond the detection of science - that he cannot be ruled in or out of any equation.  

Does this make any sense?  Certainly, scientists are correct in one respect. If an all-powerful God wished to hide from us, he most certainly could do that - no doubt.  However, what if God wished to reveal himself through the physical world?  Would it then be impossible to detect him simply because he is God and God is defined as undetectable?  Would a God who is actually trying to be recognized as enormously powerful and intelligent actually be harder to identify than an intelligent and powerful "alien" civilization sending radiosignals to our planet?

It seems as though most scientists are uneasy with any theory that does not have its basis in the workings of a mindless nature for fear that the only alternative to this position, intelligent design, might bring back the darkness of superstition. However, many of these same scientists hope to find evidence, even historically based evidence, of intelligent life in the universe beyond our own world.  Even within our own world, entire scientific disciplines, such as forensic science, are based on discovering the workings of purpose and intelligence.  Clearly then, scientists seem quite confident in their abilities to detect intelligent activity as long as it has nothing to do with the origin of life or the fundamental workings of the universe and it isn't given the label of "God".  

It seems then that, "Design is ruled out not because it has been shown to be false but because science itself has been defined as applied materialistic [or mindless cause] philosophy."  While it is true that science can only work with material phenomena, it is not true that only mindless, non-deliberate, or random forces must be considered as causes, a priori, for all material phenomena.  That notion just isn't part of the scientific method.  This is a philosophical notion, not scientific one.

Yet, this disguised religious philosophy has taken the scientific community by storm. The vanguard theory of evolution has taken on an almost sacred status.  Who dares question it or openly admit that they do not see the emperor's clothes without putting their reputations and, on occasion, even their careers in jeopardy? I for one have been honestly looking for the emperor's clothes for some time now.  But, the more I look the more naked he gets. 

Surprisingly, I am not alone in my blindness. A number of very highly educated men and women of science have and are openly questioning the sacred status of the theory of evolution.  Of course, we may be too ignorant, stupid, or insane to see the rich clothes that are right there before our very eyes. However, never underestimate the "crazy" or the "blind". History has often shown that those who were crazy and blind in their own day turned out to be right after all.

Intelligent design

There has been a lot of controversy regarding the proposed integration of ‘Intelligent Design’ into current biology curriculum. Intelligent Design is the hypothesis that all life on Earth was created and designed by an intelligent designer. Subsumed by this hypothesis, although not clearly stated, is that most proponents of Intelligent Design believe the intelligent designer to be the most intelligent designer, namely God.

It is proposed that in the name of impartiality, Intelligent Design be taught along side Darwinian Evolution in biology classes. We have two choices in trying to argue against this hypothesis. First we can show that the hypothesis is false by counter claims of design flaws. Next we can show that the hypothesis is an inherently un-testable hypothesis which thus belongs in the realms of philosophy or theology, but not in science. I will argue that while the first approach of finding design flaws is enlightening, it misses the issue. 

The issue is that for something to be taught in a science classroom it must somehow relate to a testable hypothesis: testable by experiment. The temptation for someone who is versed in biology when approached with Intelligent Design is to quickly point out all of the design flaws that they know of. There are many examples to pick from but the most commonly offered are design flaws in (human) joints, most notably the elbow and the knee. 

One of my personal favourites is the prevalence of people with eye glasses which suggests there is a possible design flaw in the maintenance of a spherical shape of the eye. Biologists quickly offer up their favourite design flaw hoping to see a recantation of Intelligent Design. To their dismay, they get answers like: “We do not know the design of the intelligent designer. 

Perhaps non-spherical eyes are beneficial in some other unknown way, or the knee was some sort of design trade off against some other more beneficial feature. However, the sum of all the trade offs is the ultimate perfect design, designed by the most intelligent designer, God.” The frustrated scientist then returns to his beaker and the Intelligent Design guru returns to his pulpit or to the White House which are increasingly indistinguishable.

The reason that the hypothetical scientist and the theologian talk at cross purposes is that they both have failed to realize the bar of entry to science: a testable hypothesis. In life there are testable hypotheses and un-testable hypotheses. 

Some un-testable hypotheses are:

1) In absence of an observer, human or otherwise (i.e. a tape recorder): If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a noise? Yes or no?

2) Suppose all of history started 5 minutes ago with all of our collective memories implanted at that moment.

3) All good in the world is a work of a benevolent God, and all problems people experience are the result of God working in mysterious (good) ways.

4) The wonder and beauty of the living world is the result of an intelligent design and all counter examples such as fossils, design flaws, evolutionary proofs, are just the result of our inability to grasp the grand design.

The common thread that runs across all four statements is the fallacy of an unprovable statement. It is this same thread that many stitch together to form a rip stop nylon fabric of belief. Statements 1 through 3 would likely be widely accepted as topics for a class on philosophy or theology. Statement 4 is no different. It is an inherently unprovable statement which has no place in science.

Many have said that science is a religion unto itself. I have often said that the only reason our language has two words for science and religion is that we sorely misunderstand both. They are both searches for the truth. Science is an ideology based on the Scientific Method and the instrument of that method is the experiment. Science allows for discussions of all things provable, even if they are not yet proved. 

Take for example the Superstring revolution in physics. It is currently unproven; however, scientists are building the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland which should have sufficient power to create ‘supersymmetric’ particles which would confirm the theory. What experiment does Intelligent Design proposes to validate its hypothesis? How does one experimentally prove something was designed? Even if such an experiment could be constructed, how then does that disprove that the designed item was not self designed and thus (perhaps), not intelligently designed?

Confused? The notion of a self designing design is especially hard to understand on a planet where we (most) see a clear distinction between human made and natural objects. [However, it is a distinction I do not see because humans as part of nature.] Just the same, the notion of a self designing design is crucial to evolution, and while complex, its power is compelling.

If you are confused and interested pick up a good book on the subject or take a course. However, if you are presented with Intelligent Design, ask for a proposed or executed experiment published in a reputable scientific journal. Darwin had to go through the same efforts of the before his works were accepted. There is an established process in place and it has been put in place by an intelligent design (irony intended). The designer is certainly not God and its intelligence is often arguable, just the same it has served us well so far.

In summation, scientists are, by definition, very inquisitive people who would love to have conversations about many different theories and possibilities. The price of admission to such a conversation is to bring with an experimentally testable hypothesis. All other discussions belong in a different classroom.

Theory of evolution was driven by passion to end slavery

Known for his theories on evolution, Charles Darwin conducted his famous research because he wanted to rid the world of slavery, according to a new book. In the book, called Darwin''s Sacred Cause, science historians Adrian Desmond and James Moorehave gathered evidence that shows Darwin was passionately opposed to slavery and that was the prime reason he embarked on his famous research.

The pair uncovered private notes and letters, which reveal that Darwin''s opinions on slavery were far stronger than had previously been believed.The scientist''s notebooks from his five year voyage on HMS Beagle, during which Darwin first began to form his famous theories on natural selection, reveal his disgust at the slavery in South America.

Desmond and Moore have also discovered letters written by Darwin''s sisters, cousins and aunts, which show that his family consisted of highly active abolitionists. In fact, his grandfather and uncles were key members of the anti-slavery movement. In the book they have claimed that one of the reasons that Darwin chose to highlight the common descent of man from apes, was to show that all races were equal.

He wanted to negate those who insisted black people were a different, and inferior, species from those with white skin. The historians wanted sexual selection was responsible for differences in appearance between races of both animals and humans. In the theory of sexual selection traits seen as desirable but which give no competitive advantage to a species are passed down through generations.

Moore, from the department of history of science at the Open University, said that initially Darwin was reluctant to tackle the origins of humans in his book ''On the Origin of Species'', which was published in 1859, as it was a controversial subject. "We are not trying to explain away all of Darwin''s work as being due to his passion for emancipation, but our argument is that his passion for racial unity is what drove him to touch this untouchable and treacherous subject," The Telegraph quoted him as saying.

He added: "Darwin was finally goaded into starting his work on the origins of man in 1865 by a rising tide of scientific belief that the races were separate species." The new book examines notes that Darwin made during his voyage on the Beagle, which include how he felt disgusted at the slavery he saw in Brazil. In notebooks he used while drawing up his theory of natural selection, he made references to slavery.

Desmond, an honorary research fellow at University College London, said: "Darwin doesn''t overtly refer to slavery and racism as his motivation for writing Descent of Man and On the Origin of Species, but it is there lurking in the background. I don''t think anyone has really looked at how strong his belief in anti-slavery was, and this could be why it has been overlooked. What he was saying was that if you accept evolution, then you don''t accept the view that black people are a separate species. It is clear that he believed the same as his grandfathers - that slaves were men and brothers."

A Darwinian Victory

If John Thomas Scopes was alive today he would be all smiles! The National Centre for Science Education announced Friday that the Texas Board of Education has officially accepted the use of scientifically accurate biology textbooks in their high school curriculum, while rejecting supplements backed by creationists.

Scientific supplements were presented by a panel of scientists and educators while creationist supplements were submitted by International Databases. After reviewing the submissions, the board sided with evolution, accepting the scientific supplements and rejecting those of the creationists by a lop-sided vote of 14-0. Disturbingly, until now, the teachings of Charles Darwin and evolutionary theory have been strictly prohibited from being taught to the young, bright minds of Texas.

Even more alarmingly, the teaching of evolution is still rejected in other states. Recent polls suggest that more than 40% of Americans accept the literal accounts of genesis and disregard any evidence or idea regarding evolution. Don’t misinterpret this post as a form of bashing Christianity or any other religion for that matter; I am merely alluding to the absurdity of continuing to deny students the right to learn about topics such evolution which are founded in such overwhelming scientific evidence. 

 In such states science and religion should at least be taught hand-in-hand; let the student decide what to believe. But let the factors in the debate be displayed evenly. This disregard for evolutionary theory is not just happening in the southern United States, but is happening to varying degrees all around. Many high school curricula briefly mention evolution and the theory behind it, but typically don’t teach it to the extent and depth it deserves and requires.

Charles Darwin for criticising his famous theory of evolution

Coming 126 years after his death, the church's apology will focus on how wrong it was for senior bishops in the past to misunderstand and attack Darwin's theory about man being descended from apes.

Senior church officials will post the apology in the form of an article written by the Reverend Dr Malcolm Brown on the church's website tomorrow.

"Charles Darwin, 200 years from your birth (in 1809), the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still,'' the article says, according to extracts printed by The Mail on Sunday newspaper.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

"But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests.''

But the apology by Dr Brown, who is the director of mission and public affairs of the Archbishops' Council, has been dismissed as "pointless'' by Darwin's great great grandson Andrew Darwin.

"Why bother? he said.

"When an apology is made after 200 years, it's not so much to right a wrong, but to make the person or organisation making the apology feel better.''

But Dr Brown says everyone makes mistakes, the church included.

"When a big new idea emerges that changes the way people look at the world, it's easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights,'' he writes.

"The church made that mistake with Galileo's astronomy and has since realised its error.

"Some Church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

"So it is important to think again about Darwin's impact on religious thinking, then and now.''