Fred Reed on Evolution

[Benko]

A true scientist doesn't claim to have all the answers.

So a good scientist would never claim that a scientific matter was settled and everyone agreed when there was not agreement?  A good scientist would never try to suppress opposing points of view and prevent them from being published?  A good scientist would be open minded enough to hear points of view that differed from his and judge them objectively?

I would suggest that Max Planck's (Planck was a nobel prize winning physicist) view is correct more often :

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Max Planck

Aside from the obvious example of global warming, the story of h Pylori as a cause for gastric ulcers is revealing.  Initially no one would believe that there could be an infectious cause of ulcers because the possibility was not part of their mindset. 

[moda0306]

I like evolution as a theory.  But then I watch the discovery channel and get to hear them talk about how our eyes evolved.

"Here is the primordial worm, 600 million years ago with light sensitive cells that can only sense light or shadow.  And here is the invertebrate 10 million years later with fully formed eyes that can spot prey!"

All of the interesting and complicated aspects of our physiology are all soft and are preserved in the fossil record.  Changes in bones structure are easily explained, we do that with dog breeds.  The evolution of the eye, the brain, or the split between plants and animals, the evolution of the chloroplast.  I feel like evolution does a bit of hand waving when it comes to these kinds of features.  I mean, a chloroplast is either on or it's not.  How is that going to develop over successive generations?

+1

[Benko]

I like evolution as a theory.  But then I watch the discovery channel and get to hear them talk about how our eyes evolved.

"Here is the primordial worm, 600 million years ago with light sensitive cells that can only sense light or shadow.  And here is the invertebrate 10 million years later with fully formed eyes that can spot prey!"

All of the interesting and complicated aspects of our physiology are all soft and are preserved in the fossil record.  Changes in bones structure are easily explained, we do that with dog breeds.  The evolution of the eye, the brain, or the split between plants and animals, the evolution of the chloroplast.  I feel like evolution does a bit of hand waving when it comes to these kinds of features.  I mean, a chloroplast is either on or it's not.  How is that going to develop over successive generations?

+1

Agreed.  Not to mention, how did the chloroplast evolve from nothing itself?

[Tyler]

I think the beauty of the scientific method is that it is willing to revise. A true scientist doesn't claim to have all the answers. There is something more, all right, but it's not magic. It's just something we have not yet discovered or wrapped our mammalian minds around.

So, you know there is something more and you don't know what it is but you are certain enough that your will methodology will uncover it that you are able to exclude any other explanation outside your methodology? That sounds like blind faith to me.

Precisely.

There are two sides of storytelling in scientific discussions that share aspects of faith in something that cannot be proven.

The first are the stories that scientists tell to fill in the gaps in their knowledge.  As Dualstow notes, they are often reasonable deductions based on observation, like how a specific chemical probably causes cancer even if they can't prove (yet) by what mechanism it does.  Science does not need to explain everything to be on the right track.  But on the frontiers, the stories get more elaborate and strained to support a core belief.  Like how 11-dimensional string theory must be true for the current mathematical model of the atom to not fall apart.  Or how there surely must be infinite unobservable parallel universes because that's the natural extension of a new theory of the big bang.  Or, yes,  increasingly elaborate stories of how specific biological features must have evolved along the way because any other possible explanation is pure fantasy and superstition.

The second are the stories we as scientific laypeople tell ourselves as explanations for why we believe what we do.  Why do you believe Al Gore and Michael Mann on global warming but not Bjorn Lomborg or Richard Lindzen?  Because "politics", "consensus", "follow the money" -- you get the idea.  Why do you believe Jenny Mccarthy is a crackpot on vaccines but you only buy organic produce because Monsanto is out to get you?  "Well I read an article on vaccines so that's clearly settled, and saw this documentary on pesticides and holy crap that's bad." The average person is an embodiment of the sum of "facts" they choose to believe, and read just enough to support their own biases while ignoring the noise.  Just because you reject religion doesn't mean your particular menagerie of scientific knowledge isn't equally faith-based on an individual level.

IMHO the universe is much more complex than anyone can even comprehend.  As an engineer by training, I'm unabashedly pro-science but I recognize its limits.  Knowledge without doubt is simply dogma. 

[moda0306]

If there is a god, he is operating on a level of science that we simply don't understand yet.  Just like particle physics operates on a very different plane than neutonian physics, there would have to be another level of understanding. Perhaps it's impossible to discover or too complex for our minds to wrap around, but the nature of science is to not stop when something seems difficult.

If intelligent design is one obvious clue god have us to his presence, why should science stop there?

And even if all we have is revelations that will ever I've is a true connection to god, how do we separate a "revelation" from convenient/wishful thinking, or groupthink?

Maybe we'll never know and have to take leaps of faith.

If those leaps mean treating people with respect and using my guy to tell me what a more, fine.

If those leaps mean listening to a church tell me arbitrary rules and issuing arbitrary judgments and proceeding with arbitrary customs, well then I have a lot to choose from and most kind of stink. This is a bigger leap of faith than I think is reasonable, especially because it usually imposes harsh consequences on people who go to a different church. 

[dualstow]

I love Fred's opinions, but all he has told me in this essay is that he hasn't grasped all the details of evolution, therefore there is Something Else.

You mean if he really grasped the details of evolution he would have the answers to those questions he is asking? I didn't know science had uncovered those answers yet.

No. that's not what I meant. Obviously no one has all the answers. You yourself even quoted me saying it a few lines below. I should have said that Fred has drawn the conclusion that there is Something Else because currently evolutionary theory as he understands it does not satisfy him. In contrast, I draw the conclusion that more will unfold, although a million  human generations may pass and it will still be incomplete.

I think the beauty of the scientific method is that it is willing to revise. A true scientist doesn't claim to have all the answers. There is something more, all right, but it's not magic. It's just something we have not yet discovered or wrapped our mammalian minds around.

So, you know there is something more and you don't know what it is but you are certain enough that your will methodology will uncover it that you are able to exclude any other explanation outside your methodology? That sounds like blind faith to me.

It shouldn't sound like blind faith to you.
The scientific methodology of asking questions and seeking answers is the best we have. What else is there? Jewish folktales from B.C.?
Am I certain that this methodology will uncover everything? We may not even be human by then, but it could happen. A massively intelligent AI will probably carry on when humans are put out to pasture, but I understand that may sound zany to some, especially when our desktop computers are still crashing.  Of one thing I am certain: we will uncover more. I'd rather run with that than listen to the Pope tell me if it's ok to wear condoms yet.

moda 0306 said: If there is a god, he is operating on a level of science that we simply don't understand yet. 

That's how I feel. It's like the Aasimov (Bradbury?) quote about very advanced science being indistinguishable from magic.

[dualstow]

P.S. Lest anyone think I'm a pure atheist, here's what I believe-
http://godzillaz-strip.deviantart.com/a ... -208690860