Metaphysical Roots of Abiogenesis
by MikeGeneHere is something interesting about the metaphysical roots of abiogenesis research. It is an excerpt from the book, Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History, written by Dr Helena Sheehan of Dublin City University.
But, despite his wilder exploits, Haldane was a very serious man. As a scientist, his work was outstanding and broke new ground. He undertook to re-found Darwinism upon the concepts of Mendelian genetics and thus to eliminate the seeming contradictions between heredity and evolution. He was the first to estimate the mutation rate in man. In 1929, his investigations into the origin of life had produced a theory giving a materialist explanation for the emergence of living organisms from the inorganic world. His work proceeded parallel to, but independent of, the work of the Soviet biochemist, A.I. Oparin. The connection between the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis and Marxist philosophy has been the subject of controversy among historians of science. It was set off by C.H. Waddington who remarked in the course of a book review:
In the late twenties and early thirties the basic thinking was done which led to the view that saw life as a natural and perhaps inevitable development from the nonliving physical world. Future students of the history of ideas are likely to note that this new view, which amounts to nothing less than a great revolution in man's philosophical outlook on his own position in the natural world, was first developed by communists.
Disputing this, David Joravsky has maintained that chemical hypotheses concerning the origin of life were in no way the product of Marxist philosophy, as neither Haldane nor Oparin were Marxists at the time of their discoveries. Loren Graham has responded quite differently. He argues that both were already under the influence of Marxist philosophy at the time and underwent an intellectual development in which Marxism played its part. Both subsequently became dialectical materialists and explicitly declared that Marxism was an important influence on their biological thought. Graham maintains that the acknowledgement of some form of connection between Marxism and research into the origin of life is a healthy corrective to the tendency to think of the history of the connection between Marxism and biology only in terms of Lysenko. Wishing to set things in perspective, he claims:
This tendency to explain an acknowledged calamity in science as a result of Marxist philosophy while assuming that a brilliant page in the history of biology had nothing to do with Marxism is a reflection, at least in part, of the biases and historical selectivity of anti-Marxist journalists and historians."
Whatever the precise timetable of the intellectual development of Haldane and Oparin, it is in any case significant that the sort of men who were in the process of evolving towards a dialectical materialist position in philosophy were in fact the men who tackled the problem of the origin of life and made the crucial breakthrough in this sphere. However, it is of some importance for the history of science to sort out as far as possible exactly how the process unfolded for both Haldane and Oparin.* In Haldane's case, the evidence for Graham's interpretation is even stronger than what Graham has himself set out and even clearer than in the case of Oparin where Graham concentrates his attention as Oparin is central to the purposes of Graham's study, whereas Haldane is tangential to it.
Okay, we shouldn't think the connection between Marxism and biology is only in terms of Lysenko. 
July 19th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Hmmm, I wonder what breakthrough that was? Doesn't the scientific community recognize that there is a desparate need for a breakthrough reguarding the origin of life?
Comment by bFast — July 19, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
July 20th, 2006 at 12:20 am
Haldane and Oparin motivated by something other than a detached, objective view of scientific data- shocking!
Comment by Bradford — July 20, 2006 @ 12:20 am
July 20th, 2006 at 7:21 am
Yet, has anything really changed? I mean, consider the widely known and freely acknowledged objectivity and critical thinking skills of the Darwindefensor internetensis as a class.
Comment by Ilion — July 20, 2006 @ 7:21 am
July 20th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him? Clearly the House Committee on Unamerican Activities needs to investigate this whole commie-abiogenesis connection!
Comment by Aagcobb — July 20, 2006 @ 9:44 am
July 20th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Like that.
Comment by Ilion — July 20, 2006 @ 10:16 am
July 20th, 2006 at 10:28 am
If only we could all be as objective and thoughtful as you, Ilion.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 20, 2006 @ 10:28 am
July 20th, 2006 at 11:00 am
It's interesting because the first time I encountered 'science denial' was at the hands of marxists. The marxist philosophy - as it was explained to me - includes the assertion by Marx that people are entirely a product of their environment. Of course this is not actually the case, because people are a product of a combination of their genes and their environment. So Marx was wrong. Try telling that to a room full of marxists though.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 20, 2006 @ 11:00 am
July 20th, 2006 at 11:49 am
What I find fascinating is the degree of authoritarianism on both ends of the political spectrum, as so often expressed by folks involved in the evolution wars. On the right there's the infamous 'Theocrats' we hear so much about in paranoid rants about how if humanity is allowed to believe in gods/God we'll end up with Christian Sharia law and endless crusades, poor, honest, open-minded Neodarwinists burned at the stake for heresy.
On the left is the Stalinist brand of athoritarianism where scientists call all the political shots upon assumed authority, accusing religious believers of child abuse and gross insanity - complete with calls for 're-education' camps and state child-rearing to ensure proper indoctrination. No form of authoritarianism values freedom, and no form of authoritarianism can tolerate tolerance.
Meanwhile, out here somewhere in the middle range, it's not difficult to see the irrationality coming from both wings. All authoritarianism is born of fear - fear of change, fear of 'other', fear of death… and we all know what Yoda said about fear: Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
There has been more work on the psychology of right-wing authoritarianism than left, but using the correlations listed in Altemeyer's work a list of personality quirks in the authoritarian mindset can be made:
1. Faulty reasoning. Authoritarians are more likely to:
- Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
- Hold contradictory ideas leading them to 'speak out of both sides of their mouths'.
- Uncritically accept that many problems are 'our most serious problem'.
- Uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their views.
- Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear.
- Use many double standards in their thinking and judgments.
2. Hostility Toward Outgroups. Authoritarians are more likely to:
- Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights.
- Punish severely 'common' criminals in role-playing situations.
- Admit they obtain personal pleasure from punishing such people.
- Be prejudiced [against those they feel are beneath them].
- Be hostile [toward targeted groups].
3. Profound Character Flaws. Authoritarians are more likely to:
- Be dogmatic.
- Be zealots.
- Be hypocrites.
- Be bullies when they have power over others.
- Help cause and inflame intergroup conflict.
- Seek dominance over others.
4. Blindness to One's Own Failings. Authoritarians are more likely to:
- Believe they have no personal failings.
- Avoid learning about their personal failings.
- Be highly self-righteous.
- Use [their belief system] to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain self-righteousness.
[Review of Altemeyer, Personality & Individual Differences, 1987, 8(5)]
Comment by Joy — July 20, 2006 @ 11:49 am
July 20th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Strange. Joy thinks of authoritarianism and automatically thinks scientists. I think of authoritarianism and I see the DI.
Nice link by the way. This bit made me laugh out loud: "Weaken constitutional guarantees of liberty…" (which side got caught trying to do just that in Dover I wonder?).
From that same link was this fascinating piece:
I immediately thought of trying this on another document. Try this out for size:
Interesting, huh?
I think the DI might actually be a bit on the weak side on the 'authoritarian submission' front. Although I guess the appeals to the authority of God might count - for those who believe at any rate.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 20, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
July 20th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Aagcobb:
LOL. Seriously though, it is worth pointing out that abiogenesis research is rooted in metaphysics. And it is also worth pointing out that 80-or-so years later, that while the Haldane-Oparin hypothesis has been largely embraced by the scientific community, it hasn't exactly generated an impressive track record of success. Is there good reason to think that anything other than metaphysics is involved?
Comment by MikeGene — July 20, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
July 20th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
It seems to me odd to seek a modern philosophical basis for what seems to me to be just one more step in a long progression of the development of science, where the greatest advances have always come from those with the courage and imagination to seek naturalistic alternatives to traditional supernatural explanations of natural phenomena.
Comment by trrll — July 20, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
July 21st, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Joy:
I liked your post. I agree alot with what you said. Of course, I didn't agree with everything you said. I seldom agree with everything anyone says. I know few people that do. But, that is what makes life interesting and fun!!!! The people on both extremes of the evo/creo dabate don't seem to understand that. The unfortunate thing is that those on the far left who have anointed themselves societies only defenders of science. (I won't name any names) are trying to turn science into an ideology which excludes anybody but those who toe the partyline. Ironically, in their rhetoric they'll talk all day about reason, rationality and openess. Some even call themselves Liberal. But isn't liberalism about tolerance and a diversity of view points?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 21, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
July 21st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Thanks, John. Lord knows I'm an iconoclast and definitely not a 'follower' anyone can count on to mouth platitudes! I mean, here I am defending an ID way of viewing life on planet earth, and I haven't read any of Dembski's or Behe's or Johnson's books (and don't really plan to unless somebody gives me some). I'd probably like Behe's stuff okay, though I'd have to approach Dembski and Johnson as the wannabe theocrats they strongly appear from public statements to be. Of course, I don't read Dawkins or Lewontin or those guys either. I'm agin' authoritarianism from either wing - you'll find me on the front line barricades if those struggles ever hit the streets!
In this struggle I'm more inclined to defend the religionists, because its their rights being most directly threatened by the sheer power of science in the modern world. They can't have their theocracy (I'll fight 'em), but their rights must be respected. The leftist storm troopers want to 'eradicate' those rights, so they can kiss my booty.
Worse, I myself am a "leftist" in the political sense. Though I'm thoroughly distrustful of hard-left 'crats too, ever since the professional outside agents provocateur tried to take over our Moratorium Day planning during my first year in college (poli-sci dept was in charge). We kicked 'em off campus post haste and alerted the local police to KEEP 'em away. Which, thankfully, the local police did (locked up those who wouldn't leave town immediately) instead of picking fights with peaceful students wearing black armbands on the quad. A good time was had by all except the outside bomb-throwers.
I am fond of freedom, within necessary sociopolitical limitations. Always have been, and I was born, raised, and married into to the military (Navy). Which is about the most authoritarian of subgroupings you can find in any political system. Within that subgroup (and serving others) there's some real, seriously thought-out commitment to that which one takes an oath to protect and defend - the sociopolitical charter. I presume it's the same for whatever "enemies" of moment are targeted. Usurpers and corrupters are not well liked or long tolerated among these subsets or their controlling administrations.
For instance, did you know that back in the '80s Greenpeace got a large majority of its public funding from active duty and retired Navy? Saving the whales and porpoises was something sailors cared a lot about - and they gave what they could, small donations (pay's not great) in multitudinous bulk. Nothing's ever as black and white as political propagandists would have you believe. §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 21, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Joy:
You should really read Johnson and Dembski so that you can get a better idea what motivates their thinking. For example, in a brief essay in the 1999 book, Three Views on Creation and Evolution, (Moreland and Reynolds eds.) Johnson centers his argument on a book review written in the "NY Times Review of Books" by Richard Lewontin (Jan 1997) Lewontin writes: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdities of some of it's constructs… [and] inspite of the tolerance… for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have an apriori commitment to materialism… Moreover that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Johnson was (and still is) alarmed that such militant atheistic materialism is propounded by so many prominent scientists. I have no problem with that part of his critique. The problem I have is whether they can reconstruct science on a more theistic metaphysical foundation. Does science need any metaphysical foundation? I think it does a, minimal one, but I think both the materialists and ID theorists go to far in pushing what we really need as an open democratic society.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 24, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Wouldn't make no never-mind.
Joy, you see, is a leftist. As with most leftists, she sees the world in stark monochrome (me good; you, if you disagee with my preferences, evil) — all the while assidiously accusing "the other side" of this great flaw.
Is there any evidence at all that Johnson or Dembski are "wannabe theocrats?" Of course not! But, they argue at various times for orthodox Christianity; they apparently *really* believe that Christianity is telling the truth about reality. But, the current leftist Weltanshaung requires its adherents to be in a tizzy over the assertion that "The theocrats are coming! The theocrats are coming!" Therefore, since Johnson or Dembski appear to seriously be Christians, they *must* be wannabe theocrats."
The question isn't: "Does science need any metaphysical foundation?"
Rather, the question is: "Shall science be done on the basis of a good or a bad metaphysical foundation?"
Comment by Ilion — July 24, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
You know, Ilion, sometimes it's better to argue a case while passing on at a few opportunities here and there to be gratuitously belligerent, at least if your goal is to potentially enlighten some of the people who read you instead of turning them off. I'm pretty conservative, and I disagree with Joy that Dembski and Johnson are theocratic, but somehow I manage not to be a big a-hole about it.
Comment by Deuce — July 24, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Deuce, it bothers me not a whit if you want to pretend I'm a "gratuitously belligerent … big a-hole" because I bluntly describe the false reality that Joy constantly paints. I'm not a doormat and I'm not passive-agressive. I have no need to pretend that false is true just so someone else will think I'm "nice."
The fact is that Joy has a very difficult time writing anything of length without inserting "gratuitously belligerent" leftist-inspired swipes at those she disagrees with on some (often minor) point. And more often than not, these remarks are "gratuitously" off-topic to whatever-it-is she's writing about.
"… I disagree with Joy that Dembski and Johnson are theocratic, but somehow I manage not to be a big a-hole about it."
You know, I don't recall seeing *you* "enlightening" anyone on the "gratuitously belligerent" and erroneous assertions she so frequently makes.
But, let's ignore history. Let's look at just this one example: It was on July 21, three days ago (almost to the minute), that she posted her accusation that Johnson and Dembski are "wannabe theocrats." And, yet, for all your vaunted ability to "disagree with Joy that Dembski and Johnson are theocratic, but somehow [] manage not to be a big a-hole about it," you *said* nothing in those three days to indicate that disagreement. Why is that?
Call me a "big a-hole," but it seems to me that your preferred method of disagreeing with Joy's "gratuitously belligerent" and far-too-frequently erroneous assertions is to let them stand, to say nothing.
Call me a "big a-hole," but it seems to me that proper (and perhaps only) way to dispute Joy's "gratuitously belligerent" and far-too-frequently erroneous assertions is to *actually* dispute them. Now, if that leads you to conclude that I'm a "big a-hole," that's *your* problem.
Comment by Ilion — July 24, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
John A:
An open and democratic society needs to keep metaphysics out of science because science is not metaphysics. An open and democratic society does not need to fight endlessly about whose metaphysics will get peddled to the public disguised as science.
Science doesn't need a metaphysical foundation. It needs a practical foundation, which it has per its FAPP job description. It's the approach to what it investigates - the presumption that natural phenomena have natural cause. Some theists feel threatened by this presumption. Some scientists embrace it as more than a presumption. Neither the theist's fear nor the materialist's extrapolation are science. Both are personal reactions to the immense power science wields in the modern world.
Ilion's post sums it up very nicely. It's not okay to corrupt science just because you believe your metaphysics is better than anybody else's. That, in fact, is what's wrong with science right now.
Comment by Joy — July 24, 2006 @ 6:03 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
I don't believe that humans can be separated from their metaphysics. For this reason, I believe that a metaphysics free science is unattainable — unless we get rid of the humans.
For evidence of what I speak, consider our attempt to remove religion from the classroom, and to offer "values free" education. When you eliminate religion, values, or metaphysics you end up with a vaccum that will be filled by another variant of religion, values or metaphysics. Such is the human condition.
I believe that the only realistic solution to this problem is to deny metaphysics free science. Any scientist that does not understand that he has a metaphysical frame should not be offered a seat at the table, however, those who do understand and state their metaphysical frame should all be welcomed.
Comment by bFast — July 24, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Exactly, bFast. This is precisely the reason I said that the proper question isn't "Does science need a metaphysical basis?" but rather, "What shall be the metaphysical basis of science?"
Comment by Ilion — July 24, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
July 24th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Why does science need to be a unity of thought? What's wrong with there being different strains of science, different strains with different metaphysical frames.
Comment by bFast — July 24, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Joy:
I disagree with your statement that science doesn't need a metaphysical foundation. I implied in my post that it doesn't need a specifically materialistic or theistic metaphysical foundation. It does, however, need some kind of minimal metaphysical starting point. For, example: Science requires that the world out there be really there, a metaphysical position known as realism. It's always logically possible that we live in some kind of virtual reality matrix as was depicted in the movie "The Matrix". How can you prove that you are or you are not part of such a matrix? Pinching yourself? There's an answer for that. Science also requires that we assume that the laws of nature are universal the act the same everywhere else in the universe, and that there is a necessary chain of cause and effect. The skeptic David Hume challenged the latter idea of cause and effect. It is logically possible, as Hume demonstrated, to think otherwise… Metaphysics in my mind is the study of the logically possible.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 25, 2006 @ 11:20 am
July 25th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Ilion:
What do you think is the metaphysical foundation of science? Do you agree or disagree with what I have said?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 25, 2006 @ 11:27 am
July 25th, 2006 at 11:43 am
John, I consider the necessary presumptions of scientific endeavor to be entirely practical, because they do not require investment of faith. If I want to bake a loaf of bread, I will use yeast the recipe requires it. I don't have to invest any faith in the yeast, and I don't have to bake bread that uses any yeast at all. But if I'm following the recipe, I will use the yeast it calls for.
The presumption that the world is real is necessary for us to do any practical investigation of it. This doesn't mean the world is real, it doesn't require anyone to believe the world is real, it's just part of the recipe we're following. The presumption that natural phenomena have natural causes works exactly the same way. Science is not a metaphysics, and it's not a belief about the world. It's a specific and purposefully constrained method of investigating the world and its phenomena - For All Practical Purposes.
Our practical purposes are about control, having nothing to do with Absolute Truth or metaphysical belief systems. People who invest their faith in science as some sort of Absolute Truth are responsible for their own misguided choices and gross misunderstanding of the nature of science. Science never pretended to be anything but a human endeavor. Humans pretend it's more than that.
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2006 @ 11:43 am
July 25th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
I agree with every word of your post Joy. And I'm on the 'other side' of the evolution vs. ID debate. I too find myself opposed to the authoritarian elements on both sides of the debate.
I have been told by scientists and non-scientists that science itself is a 'worldview'. I disagree. Science is just a method and a very impressive body of results that have been obtained using that method. You can be of any metaphysical persuasion you like, it doesn't matter - If you follow the method then you're doing science.
From a point made earlier - I find Dawkins a fine writer when he sticks to science, but I disagree with his extreme atheist stance and find the whole 'brights' movement pathetic. I don't agree with Richard Lewontin either. Having said that, I also most certainly don't agree with Johnson and the rest at the Discovery Institute.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 25, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
I think there are undeniably some metaphysical presuppositions that are required by science. However, most of these are so obvious, so commonsensical, that most people probably take them for granted and don't think of them as metaphysical:
1. There is such a thing as truth.
If there is no truth, there is no discovery, scientific or otherwise. Something must be true before you can discover that it is true. Even beliefs about how things work for practical purposes are beliefs about what's true. In fact, mathematical equations are themselves propositions (truth statements) that can be true or false. Try doing science without them!
2. The truth is not relative.
If propositions like The earth is round or E=Mc^2 are true for you, but false for me, we have a pretty big science stopper on our hands. It would be pointless for people to share data with others, as the things that were true for you wouldn't actually be true. All collaborative intellectual activity requires that what is true is true for everyone, so that we can possibly make the same observations, and reason from them. Finally, relative "truth" is just as incompatible with discovery as the denial of truth (actually, it is a denial of truth, hence my scare quotes). If truths are only true for you, then there isn't anything objectively true to discover about the world - you might as well define the truth to be whatever you want it to be. Note that all this applies just as strongly to propositions about how things work for practical purposes as it does to propositiosn about Ultimate Reality.
3. The human mind has a connection to truth, such that we know what truth is, and can learn truths.
This is a no-brainer, I think. Certainly our not having any concept of truth would be just as fatal to discovery as there not being any truth to discover (as in 1). It's existence would no us no good if we couldn't interact with it in any way. The very word "true" (and also "false") would be meaningless when we uttured it, and wouldn't actually refer to anything.
4. We have rational faculties which, when we use them properly, can be used to arrive at truths.
This is also a no-brainer. If our rational faculties didn't lead us to truth when used properly, then why even bother thinking? Not thinking would be just as likely to help us find truth as thinking. In that case, we might as well do science by not thinking, or by thinking irrationally. It would certainly be easier!
5. By examining the external world around us, gathering data on it, and interpreting that data using our rational faculties, we can arrive at truths about the world.
1-4 were actually premises that are necessary for rational activity in general. 5 is necessitated more specifically for empirical inquiry. It's obvious for a similar reason as 4. Obviously, the whole point of gathering and interpreting data is that it is supposed to get you closer to the truth of things. If this weren't true, then not gathering any data would be just as likely to lead to understanding of the world as gathering data. In that case, we might as well do science by trying to forget everything we've experienced, or by locking ourselves in sensory deprivation chambers. There'd be no reason to try and learn more to solve a problem.
All of these things hold even if we're approaching science in a completely practical manner. Even gathering data just to figure out how things work in a practical manner is to look for objective truth - the truth about how things work in a practical manner - and assumes that gathering data helps you get there. It would even apply if we were doing science in the Matrix.
Comment by Deuce — July 25, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Odd Digit, it does my heart good to see you acknowledge the practical nature of science. I too get frustrated by all the metaphysical claims made by the activists on both sides, because it so corrupts and distorts science. I hate to see that, but any time humans are involved in the investigations or in the applications, things tend to get corrupted. So it's actually a good thing to have these sorts of public disputes occasionally.
Deuce, I'm glad your 'truth' is small-t. But I think you're talking more about fact, which is simply a given. Fact is the sun comes up and darkness returns on a relative 24-hour cycle. Light-time gets longer in the approach to summer, gets shorter in the approach to winter. There is a peak light-time and a minimum light-time, which occur at 6-month intervals. Seasons are relative, but in temperate zones there are four - we call them spring, summer, fall and winter. If you plan in advance, you can grow crops according to this cycle.
All these are given facts about our experience of the world we live in. Theories are the stories we tell to explain the existence of these facts to ourselves. These are not about 'truth' (relative or absolute), they are about explanations and how useful those are (or are not) to human beings attempting to control their environment or at least work well within it.
When the march of light and darkness, seasons and cycles comes attached to supernatural explanations, humanity is always in a subserviant position to whatever capricious godling is in charge of the events. S/he can always decide not to do his/her job, in which case we're SOL. Natural explanations work better and do not make us subserviant to capricious godlings. They allow us to plan ahead and do things like grow enough food for the coming winter, so more of us survive. This is highly useful, so science was invented to find natural explanations for regularities we experience. Science is a useful invention of humanity. A system of knowledge that allows prediction and control.
"Random" causation is the same thing as the capricious nature of godlings. We can't do anything useful with it. So science isn't supposed to be looking for or depending upon random causation in the processes it tries to explain. This is why Neodarwinism isn't legitimate science [IMO]. You can't predict reliably from randomness and you can't control randomness. Every useful theoretic science has provided eschews randomness, because it's regularity that we're quantifying and explaining. Except for life. Why is that?
Neodarwinism, for instance, explains the commonality of amino acid/protein components (and coding) via common ancestry. But it could be explained just as usefully by horizontal transfer and symbiosis. Natural selection could explain regularity if it weren't tied so directly to the capricious nature of blind, dumb luck. The 'fittest' don't always survive and the most prolific aren't always the 'fittest'. And a lot of genetic shuffling isn't subject to selection in the first place (beyond blind, dumb luck), so that doesn't offer much in the way of useful explanation anymore either. At least, not now that we've got better tools of observation and are actually manipulating the processes predictably. A design theoretic could be more useful. The only thing standing in the way is metaphysics. That is corruption. IMO.
Comment by Joy — July 25, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
July 25th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Hi, joy, I am talking about facts, but by fact I simply mean a proposition that is true.
I agree with that. It's a fact that we experience light-time getting longer in the approach to summer, for instance (in fact, propositions about how things appear to us are among the only ones we can know for sure to be facts - even if we have an incorrect or incomplete impression of the world, it's still a fact that we have the impression).
Here I will disagree a bit (I think). For, even to say "This theory is more practical than this one" or "This one gives me more accurate predictions for the purposes of controlling my environment" is to state a proposition that you have judged to be true. And in rationally arriving at such a judgement, you must implicitly assume the 5 assumptions I gave above.
I think we basically agree however. We're just using different terminology. I think that science is about empirically searching for truth, so it requires the basic presuppositions that truth exists and can be empirically searched for (essentially, 1-5 above). However, science is not about Ultimate Truth - beyond those bare assumptions, it's not about how reality ultimately is at the most basic ontological level, and isn't really equipped to show this (I think "ultimate" conveys the idea here better than "absolute" does, because denying that science is about "absolute" truth makes it sound like you're affirming it's about "relative" truth, which isn't right either).
Comment by Deuce — July 25, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 4:27 am
Joy,
I am in agreement with the first half of your post. I don't agree with the second half.
You say:
As you mentioned earlier: "All these are given facts about our experience of the world we live in." Well, the random element in evolution is one of those facts (and I wouldn't call it 'random causation' for reasons I'll discuss later). It is not something that science is 'depending upon', it is one of those processes that science is trying to explain.
It has been shown in so many experiments that it is beyond reasonable doubt now that the DNA replication mechanisms are not perfect and that random mistakes are made when DNA is copied. Random mutations are one of those facts.
Now the fact that random mutations do occur, and that sometimes they occur in the germ line and are heritable, this is not 'random causation'. There are a couple of reasons why I say it's not.
The first you touched upon, and that is common descent. Random mutations do not start from a random place. They occur in the genomes of organisms that already have a set of functioning genes. So any mutations can only affect the genes that are already available, or very rarely cause a previously non-coding piece of DNA to be expressed as a gene.
The second reason you also mentioned, and that is natural selection. You say: "Natural selection could explain regularity if it weren't tied so directly to the capricious nature of blind, dumb luck." Well, natural selection is the balancing half of the equation, and it acts to balance the random effects of mutation. It's the 'blind, dumb luck' filter, that helps to remove the 'unlucky' deleterious mutations and helps to preserve the 'lucky' beneficial ones. Natural selection causes the beneficial mutations to spread across a population, so even though a beneficial mutation itself is down to luck - usually a lucky enhancement of an existing gene - the spread of it throughout a population is not.
Because we are not starting from a random place (we're starting from our parents), and because at a population level natural selection works to counter the random nature of mutations, it is not accurate to state that evolution has entirely 'random causation'.
You go on to say:
This is not actually the case. Common descent is a better explanation for the a great deal of the known facts about evolution than either horizontal transfer or symbiosis. Vertical transfer (i.e. parent to offspring) is by far the most common method of transferring genetic material from one organism to another. Horizontal transfer is only prevalent in prokaryotes (and extremely rare in eukaryotes) and again is a lot less common than vertical transfer. Symbiosis is very rare phenomenon, period. When looking at the commonality of the components involved in common ancestry, it's only vertical transfer that is prevalent enough to account for it across all the organisms on the planet.
Going back to one of your other points: "You can't predict reliably from randomness". But you can predict reliably using evolution, common descent in particular. There is a really good article all about the evidence for common descent, and the predictive power of the theory at talkorigins. There's also a nice piece on evolutionary predictions (it's a bit shorter too) here.
I don't agree with this at all. Evolution has shown itself to be a spectacularly useful and highly predictive scientific theory that best fits the available facts. There is no 'metaphysics' involved, only the best explanations for the available evidence. And there is no corruption either.
Most people don't make make the mistake of tarring all Christians with the same brush as the more extreme Christian elements. Please don't make the mistake of tarring all scientists with the same brush as the more extreme elements on the side of science.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 26, 2006 @ 4:27 am
July 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
It might be only academic (and boring) at this point but Horner and Westacott in their textbook, Thinking Through Philosphy: an Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2000) Give a few good definitions that might help guide further discussion on this matter.
1) "Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy concerned with the most fundamental view of reality."
2)"Scientific realism: the view that science provides us with a true picture of an independently existing reality."
3)"Non-realism: the view that the only reality we can know must be reality as it is experienced and interpreted by us (as opposed to a reality that exists independently of us.)"
Horton and Westacott have an excellent, though somewhat basic, chapter on the philosophy of science. They would certailny agree that "Modern Science" in the broad sense is based some basic metaphysical assumptions. In fact, they mention a comtemporary debate in which some academically trained philophers argue that Non-realism provides a more suitable foundational approach to science… I don't know if this settles anything (whether science is based on some kind of basic metaphysic) but I'll defer to the academics on this one.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 26, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
OD:
Excuse me? Where have I tarred "all scientists?" There's no need to inject any words or concepts into what I write so you can tilt at scarecrows. You can do that without my help.
I disagree as well with your attributions per 'random' mutation and a deterministic form of selection. There are serious constraints on that which can live, and vertical inheritance is more reliable than not. Life that is never born does not count in the march of evolution. Any life form that doesn't live long enough to reproduce contributes anything to the gene-sifting process. And any replication accidents that don't happen in germline cells count either. You're padding the odds.
I am among many who think Neodarwinism is already marginalized by new evidence and things we're learning through applications. Only metaphysically invested Neodarwinists are concerned about the situation, and that's irrelevant to the future of science (unless they 'win' by turning science into a monolithic 'orthodoxy'). The very fact that this war is carried out in the sociopolitical arena rather than the scientific arena informs me it's just dueling metaphysics. I'm hoping science will self-correct in this instance as it has been known to do in the past when such debates threatened its honesty, its usefulness and its future.
If not, the public that science supposedly serves may decide to spend their money on something more useful instead. At least, for as long as folks like PZ and Dawkins [et.al.] insist on evangelizing their scientism AS science. Hardly anyone's buying, you know, and they're getting pretty disgusted by being forced to fund attacks on their freedom and beliefs.
I'm not expecting to change a thing in either arena. I'm just watching the show because it's semi-fascinating in its display of sheer arrogance. And I'm not looking to change your mind. I do hope science will save itself from "orthodoxy" and do its job in the end, but it's no skin off my teeth if it doesn't.
Comment by Joy — July 26, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
July 26th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Joy,
You seem to think that there is a big conspiracy going on in science. There isn't.
There is no controversy about evolution amonst the vast majority of evolutionary biologists, i.e. exactly those folks who know the most about it. The people who are insisting that the 'new evidence' in some way 'marginalizes' evolution not the ones who work with the evidence every day. In reality, the new evidence - especially the genetic evidence - is making the theory stronger and stronger. We already had an enormous weight of other evidence behind common descent, the genetic evidence is adding to that weight of evidence every day.
So the manufactured 'controversy' about evolution has as much weight as the dozens of other manufactured controversies about evolution. Creationists have been insisting that evolution is on it's last legs for about 90 years. They, and their latest ID spawn, were quite mistaken then and are quite mistaken now.
The very fact that this war is carried out outside of the scientific arena informs me that is has nothing whatsoever to do with science. It's one of the very few things I agree with Phillip Johnson on. He said: "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."
Lest we forget, it is the ID movement who have been caught flaunting the constitution and trying to get nonsense taught as science in science classrooms. They know full well that they don't have a scientific leg to stand on, so they are concentrating on school kids. I can hardly express my contempt for this approach. This is 'your side' we're talking about here.
No-one is scientific circles is debating the usefulness and future of the theory of evolution. That has already been determined - it's the cornerstone of biology and will remain so, regardless of how much preaching and bleating goes on at the Discovery Institute.
Bringing up honesty is interesting, because again it's the anti-science crowd who were found to be showing dishonesty during the Dover trial. As the Judge so aptly said: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." Once again, this is 'your side'. The charge of 'threatening honesty' appears to be directed at the wrong people.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 26, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Joy:
Somewhere, back in the late 80's early 90's someone coined the term methodological naturalism (or MN). MN argues that while science must distant itself fom making metaphysical claims it must also keep itself to the study natural causes methodologically. In other words, the study of natural science is the study of natural causes (it seems rather commonsensical). In his book, Reason In the Balance, Philip Johnson rejects the concept of MN; as do the other key figures in the current ID movement. Johnson then argues that modern science must shift metaphysically to what he calls Theistic Realism (TR). I always wondered how he was going to convince atheistic, agnostic or secular scientists to change their thinking from a naturalistic metaphysic to a theistic one. I also thought that ID's rejection of MN has been a big mistake. What do you think?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 27, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
OD, I was very particular about my use of terms, yet you insist upon misrepresentation. Your straw man is a total waste of time. I'm done with it.
John A:
I think it's trash talk from a wannabe theocrat. No one should be forced to make any metaphysical presuppositions about the nature of nature, theistic or atheistic. Johnson doesn't have the power to redefine science, and PZ Myers doesn't have the power to eradicate religion. It's all just noise.
Comment by Joy — July 27, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Joy, this is twice in a single week that you have posted the same vile *double* slander concerning Johnson.
Comment by Ilion — July 27, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
July 27th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Realistically, *nothing* will convince 'atheists' (and so-called 'agnostics') to stop shilling for 'naturalism/materialism.'
You see, *everyone* already understands that that metaphysic is false; yet there are still those making a valiant effort to convince others (and themselves, I suppose) that it is the truth about reality.
Comment by Ilion — July 27, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
July 28th, 2006 at 7:12 am
Ilion:
How can one prove a metaphysic to be true or false? A metaphysical position concerns what is logically and rationally possible. I would not be so quick to off handedly dismiss a purely naturalistic explanation how everything came to be. I think the weakness to a naturalistic explanation comes when one compares it to a theistic explantion. Both are logically possible but I think when one looks at the evidence the latter (theism) is a better explanation. As a fair minded critic of Johnson and Dembski, I think Joy needs to actually read something either man has written. Labelling and name calling does not advance the argument and only creates bad feelings and anger. Unfortunately, I think Joy's mind is already made up, so, I am not going to waste my time. Personally, I am too young yet to become set in my ways. Besides, I think interesting and provocative debate and discussion requires some fair minded give and take.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 28, 2006 @ 7:12 am
July 28th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Just so.
All true statements are logical; all illogical statements are false. Yet, logic and truth are not the same thing; thus, some logical statements are false (some false statements are logical). One of the more important concepts to keep always to the fore in one's thinking is that *all* illogical statements are false. They cannot be otherwise.
So, since it is true (and cannot be otherwise) that *all* illogical statements are false, it is also true that whenever we identify some illogic we uncovered some falseness.
The 'naturalistic' or 'materialistic' "explanation" is illogical (*and* irrational *and* anti-rational). There is no escaping this fact: one can affirm it only by denying it — that is the ultimate in illogic.
That is all one needs to know. It's utterly irrelevant that the 'materialists' insist (and will continue to insist until the end of time) that if you give 'em just one more chance they can clinch the deal. It doesn't matter how many arguments they make or how many ways they make them — all their arguments are illogical because the core/foundational premise is illogical.
Metaphysical assertions are truth-claims. We're not talking about that child's toy called "science," we're talking something important; we're talking about truth and reality.
There is much to be said for "having your mind made up" — if you've done it rationally and remain open to the possibility that you made a mistake in arriving at your conclusions. This is what the two recent threads on "bias" were exploring.
However, the particular situation is most assuredly not a situation of someone having made up her mind on a rational basis (while remaining open to re-examining her reasoning to incorporate new evidence).
That statement likely reflects be some foolishness that you were taught in school. Being "set in your ways" is not intrinsically a Bad Thing, and age has little to do with it. Furthermore, oftentimes when someone dismisses another as "set in his ways," what is really being said is: "He won't roll over."
Comment by Ilion — July 28, 2006 @ 9:20 am
July 28th, 2006 at 9:27 am
John A.:
I don't pretend to be a "fair minded critic" of Johnson and Dembski. YOU asserted: "Johnson then argues that modern science must shift metaphysically to what he calls Theistic Realism (TR)." Presuming that YOU have read Johnson, and are fairly reporting his position, I responded to your question:
What do you think?
Johnson has exactly zero power to compel [the word 'must' in your account] science to embrace any metaphysic, or to switch its methodological presumption from naturalism to "Theistic Realism" - whatever that is. Thus his argument is not only vacuous, it betrays a desire for power he doesn't have, hasn't earned, and isn't ever likely to be given.
What do you call this sort of behavior?
Comment by Joy — July 28, 2006 @ 9:27 am
July 31st, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Ilion:
Thank you very much for responding to my post. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to respond pt by pt, so, let me try to cut to the chase. I don't think it is very practical to accuse someone that you are debating on-line or in person that there starting point is fundamentally irrational. First, of all they'll never admit to it, so it becomes a waste of your time trying to convince them, and that is kind of irrational in and of itself. Second, the idea of fundamental rationality/irrationality for most current systems of recognised thought is philosophically hard to prove. Personally I find it better to find some common ground terms that we can both agree on before proceding with a discussion or debate (or why bother?) I think we'd probably agree that whole anti ID, anti-theism side is on weaker rational grounds than they'll admit to, otherwise they wouldn't have to resort to ridicule, personal attacks and a whole other range logical fallacies to support or prop up their view. Or, if the evidence supporting your view point is that persuasive then you don't have to resort to logical fallacies to support it.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 31, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
July 31st, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Joy,
Thankyou for responding to my post. Surprisingly, after you elaborated a little bit I actually found myself agreeing with some of what you said. For example, you said that Johnson has zero power to compel science to "embrace any metaphysic or switch its methodological presumption…" I agree. So, why is he seen to be such a threat by his critics? I re-read protion of Johnson's last three books over the weekend. It was good to see things afresh. I would have to say after reading some of his arguments again that Johnson is in his heart of hearts a rationalist. I think he really believes that if people honestly thought through his arguments that they would have to agree with him that at least some form of Theistic realism accounts for the apparent design that we see in the world around us. Naiive perhaps, but IMO that doesn't make him any kind theocrat.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 31, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
July 31st, 2006 at 1:28 pm
…that's why I said "wannabe." I understand that Johnson is a talented logician, and I'm pretty sure I'd find his arguments compelling even if I don't agree with his extrapolations. He's preaching to the choir, not converting scientists.
Moreover, this is the primary reason (that I've been able to surmise) that the wedge strategy was about public education rather than actual science. Johnson knows, as everyone else involved should know by now, that they really don't have the power to change science's FAPP job description by sociopolitical consensus. They hope to change the way evolution is taught, and have had some real success in that direction that I certainly won't fault them for.
My grandson aced [100% for the course!] biology in this past sophomore year. The textbooks, provided by Duke along with the computers and lab equipment (we're a regular poverty project), published in conjunction with the National Geographic Society/Smithsonian and supported by not one but several dedicated websites going as deep as you like, were a wonderful change from my son's college anthropology textbook on the issue of evolution. I very much appreciate the backing-off of publishers from the more absolutist and metaphysically-rooted assertions of Neodarwinism, as well as the false evidence relied upon in the past. Heck, this textbook lists Neodarwinism among several mostly-falsified historical theoretics, then presents "modern evolutionary theory" very fairly.
This is a good thing IMO, because the dueling metaphysics in these debates is too often taken to ridiculous levels on both sides. Theists and Materialists will be fighting about metaphysics long after biology reshapes its evolutionary theoretics to encompass incoming evidence provided by new tools and promising new applications. Metaphysical beliefs have nothing to do with science, and are illegitimate to impose on conscripted schoolchildren either way.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2006 @ 1:28 pm