Sam Swank, Re. Evolutionary Coffee

I just have a few nagging questions regarding the evolution squabble:

1. Is the world really only 20,000 years old? If it is, then where did all those bones and fossils come from? The ones identified by scientists as being much older than 20,000 years. The scientific community that came up with carbon dating is the same one that isolated uranium isotopes to make atom bombs, identified DNA, mapped the human genome, and made countless other verifiable discoveries. (Not the least of which resulted in my ability to carry my entire CD collection around in an iPod.)

2. Did all of the species of animals in the world today walk off of Noah's ark 20,000 years ago? Have you done the math on that?

3. Evolution may be a nutty theory to some, but the idea that the female gender was formed from one of Adams' ribs in a garden with a talking snake requires a slight suspension of rational and logical thought as well. Wouldn't you agree?

Someone help me with this, I'm willing to learn!

Sam Swank

...

Sam - I don't think you'll find any biblical literalists in this crowd, nor creation scientists.  One thing that seems to have emerged in our debate so far, is that religion is not science. Religion simply cannot do what science does, and ought not to try.  But the reverse is true also. 

Let us indeed suspend for a moment rational and logical thought as regards the Genesis 2 account of Eve's creation.  When Adam wakes, he says (loosely paraphrased), "'It's her! At last! My heart's unknown desire made real in flesh and blood and bone!"  With luck, every man feels that "Here you are and I'm in love again" emotion at least once in his life.  Science, not being poetry, cannot capture that experience, which blows away all rational and logical thought of hormones, endorphins, and reduced brain activity due to redirected blood flow.     

+++

Re. Imperfect Coffee

1. Mike Wright

Wylie Miller:

[...]
Darwinism would be considered a joke by evolutionary scientists today who have gone way beyond those original speculations.
[...]

I wonder, Wylie, can you name three or four such evolutionary scientists who would consider Darwinism (by which I assume you mean evolution by natural selection) a joke? Even relative radicals like Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, and Richard Lewontin have repeatedly reaffirmed their dependence on a Darwinian foundation. For example, a couple of quotes from Gould's last book, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory":

"The one long argument of this book holds that a synthesis (still much in progress) has now sufficiently coagulated from this debate to designate our best current understanding of the structure of evolutionary theory as something rich and new, with a firmly retained basis in Darwinian logic..."

"Nothing of Darwin's central logic has faded or fully capsized, but his theory has been transformed, along his original lines, into something far different, far richer, and far more adequate to guide our understanding of nature."

This last, of course, is Gould's own evaluation of his own work--perhaps not entirely unbiased. But Gould hizownself often stated that his ideas on "punctuated equilibrium" were not in any way to be taken as a refutation of Darwinism. In fact, he tended to get quite irritated with Creationists who took his words out of context. (And, much as I loved the guy, I think he tended to overstate what were rather subtle differences of emphasis, rather than truly revolutionary changes in basic theory.)

I continue to read lots of books on various aspects of biology, including genetics and neuroscience, and the one thing that they *all* have in common is the process of fitting all the independent little facts into the overarching theory of evolution by natural selection. This is never the central purpose of any research, but it's always a part of the final product. There is nothing else in biology that comes close to the explanatory power of that theory.

Science, as an enterprise, is all about the weaving of otherwise isolated facts into explanatory structures that permit prediction by extrapolation. This is not a question of faith, it's a question of methodology. Good ol' Chairman Mao (the Great Helmsman, the Red, Red Sun in our Hearts) explained it in succinctly in his essay "On Practice". Here it is as interpreted by a programmer:

1. Look at the world.

2. Build a theory based on what you see.

3. Gather more facts, with an eye toward testing your theory.

4. Modify your theory as required by the new facts. If the theory is totally refuted, go to step 1.

5. Go to step 3.

Where many revealed religions that purport to deal with the "objective" facts of the world fall down *as science* is that they generally do not permit step 4. The theory must be accepted on faith, and the possibility of modification--much less disproof-- by the examination of the natural world is not to be admitted. (It's too bad Mao didn't have the courage of his convictions. Instead, Marxism-Leninism became a revealed religion that stifled thought as surely as any creation story taken literally.)

So, we have "progress" in science as increases in our knowledge of the world lead to modifications of our theories about that world, but where is there room for progress in revealed religion of the literalist kind? These really are conflicting approaches to obtaining knowledge of how the world works.

Cheers,
Mixer

+++

Robin Glynn

Mike Wright: ‘they can't give me a clear description of just what it is that scientists mean when they use the term  "evolution". I've also found that they can't easily distinguish among "evolution", "natural selection", "speciation", and "biogenesis" Whenever I've had someone tell me that "evolution" (whatever they think that might be) is "just a theory", I've found that they can't tell me what a scientific "theory" entails, nor how it might differ from a "hypothesis". When pressed, most couldn't tell me the difference between scientific theory and simple assertion--the difference between what can be investigated (and has the potential to be disproved) and what cannot.’

Maybe people, like me, don't care about all that scientific lingo maybe they are just trying to say they believe God created the universe, don't know how or are even interested in how, but much more interested in who. Maybe people who tromp all over people who don't speak the same "language" are as guilty of doing what they claim others are doing.

Mike: ‘I've also had people complain that science can't explain the origin of the universe, though they seem to imagine that religious stories *can* do so. In fact, religious stories of origins are the opposite of "explanation". They are simply assertions that something happened.’

And what is the definition of explanation? Do all explanations have to be factual and scientific? Maybe creation myths *explain* the theology of a group of people?

 At some point they all involve claiming that something occurred, the details of which cannot be requested. To say that "God created the universe" may appear to explain the origin of the universe, but it just pushes the true origin back one layer, leaving the origin of God unexplained.

LOL us Christian don't think God was created.

Mike: ‘The ultimate Creationist agenda is to undermine science in favor of religion. Richard Dawkins has a nice little essay on that agenda.'

I find this extremely funny after sending in the story to Coffee about the co-op science teacher telling my son that scientists are conspiring against the Christians. Two sides of the same coin? People afraid of having their world view trampled on?

Mike: ‘It seems that many people want a feeling of certainty in their stories about the world.’

My generation has no sense of certainty in their lives. Just watch TV for 30min and there will be a thousand contradictions. There are thousands of *right* ways to do or be. The diet issue alone is a nightmare, and what about the pharmaceutical industry? One minute *D* is the new wonder drug the next year we find out that it's killing people. Then there is all the random crime, and the Internet. ;-) Things are moving too fast to have any sense of certainty. Then there is the pick and choose smorgasbord of religions........

Mike: ‘That's something that science never offers. In fact, when uncertainty ends, science also ends.’

OK one minute I read that evolution is provable the next I read that science doesn't offer certainty. Maybe in another hundred years what we understand as scientific truth will be looked on as being an extremely simplistic way to look at the world. In my world of uncertainty science doesn't provide *the answer* either. For me it's easy to say that I don't think the creationists or the evolutionists have it right. As a matter of fact anyone who says they have it *right* are suspect. I think when people of a different generation read that I don't think evolution is the answer they automatically think of the religious right instead of a generation that has grown up watching *truth* after *truth* being debunked.

Mike: ‘When we say that "water freezes because God wants it to," science dies, because there's no longer any point in looking for details. Asking "why?" and "how?" becomes a pointless exercise.’

Will humanity ever become that static? Could something happen to stop humans from asking those questions? Even if the religious right took over the world wouldn't there still be people asking questions? Even if it's illegal like it has been in church history don't people still ask and look for answers?

RG

+++

Ginnie Bivona

Hmmm. Interesting. Opinions...theories...hypothesis...counter-theories, holy revelations, and heated debates. Since men recorded history men have killed each other, done all sorts of horrid things to one another, spent entire lives trying to definitively prove one of the aforementioned "theories/hypothesis" and argued until they are blue in the face. About a topic about which nobody knows. Oh, true, we can prove bits and pieces. Intriguing tidbits that drive the Seeker ever forward. If this is true, then what else can I know? With any kind of luck, only when we die we'll understand. If we are wrong about that...well, dammit. I'll be disappointed if there's anything there to feel such a feeling. Do I believe in God; A Prime Mover, A Giver of Life? Absolutely. Do I believe in Evolution? Yes. How can I not? It's written in the bones of the earth. Big Bang theory sounds plausible. Still, do I really know anything at all about any of the above? No. Oh sure, far more intelligent, far more educated people know light years more than I do...but in the end, when it's time to turn out the lights and pull the covers up in our cozy beds, we are all pretty much in the same place. We just don't know. And my guess is...we never will. Not on this planet. That which put this all in place is so far beyond our comprehension our smaller than an atom sized minds can't even begin to get around it. In a little while, a friend of mine will be coming by to deliver a very special gift. A hunk of rock. It's called Gneiss (I think) and it is considered one of the oldest rock formations on earth...formed before the seas, even before the earliest simple life-forms began. I'll hold it in my hand, and be awed. This is what makes our planet so incredibly beautiful. It takes my breath away, and leaves me with a sense of wonder that has no words.

Ginnie Bivona

+++

Bonnie Swank, Re. Borrowed Words

Dad, in response to the idea of evolution and first parents and also on reflection about our conversation of yesterday re: both language and marriage, i wrote this poem.  Hope that you enjoy it. 

BORROWED WORDS
 
Adam to Eve, later in life,
after babel's tower fell,
began his speech with borrowed words:
"Oh, my love!"
What world would I not give now
for that eternal, ancient fantasy:
"A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and thou!"
In the shade of Kunitz' VERY TREE,
the gentle spark released beneath
lithe pressure of your palm
above my heart
which would break
its fragile net of bone to rest
that narrow distance
closer to your flesh.
Now distracted by quick thoughts
of two french words: "chair" for flesh and "peau" for skin.
The first implying something
more animal/essential; the second softer,
more sensual than elemental:
"chair de ma chair."
"os de mon os."
ossature de ma vie.
bone network, calcite frame.
White
white,
like bread,
like wine;
in my bones singing:
"sang de mon sang"
with each red cell
new marrow-minted.
+++