|
Just to kick things off, let me introduce myself. I have a BA degree in Anthropology and an MS degree in Environmental
Management. I have a strong interests in a variety of subjects, including cosmology (the study of the origin
and evolution of the universe) and related matters such as the origins of life and, on a more practical level, the
evolution of socio-economic globalization and global environmental policies and practices. In a nutshell, I'm interested
in understanding humankind's relationship with the Earth, it's biosphere, and the universe in general. It is by truly
understanding our relationship to the world around us that we can maximize global welfare.
I have a somewhat liberal outlook towards life in general, mainly because of the belief change is necessary and the conservative
side of the political spectrum seems to want to halt, or even reverse certain necessary changes. Let's face it -- the
USA is not the world, and we must be willing and able to accept people with different beliefs. In addition, our understanding
of the world continues to grow, and we must be willing to change our own beliefs as gain new knowledge about the world, and
indeed the entire universe.
Change can be disruptive, and cause pain or uncertainty in people's lives, but things change and evolve whether
we want them too or not. We need to manage that change for the betterment of all. To do that, we need clear
and accurate knowledge regarding how the planet we live on works.
I am also of a secular bent because I believe you can learn greater truths by keeping one's eyes and ears open and
being willing to entertain new ideas about the world. The alternative is to shut one's eyes and accept religious "theories"
as absolute truths regardless of the facts, and I can't believe we were given a brain like ours for that.
For the record, when people ask, I tell them I am an agnostic. This is my way of saying I am withholding my opinion
until more evidence comes in. As with many people, I would like to believe in a god simply because it's nice
to think all the injustices in the world will eventually be addressed, and bad people will get their just due. But it's
very difficult to be sure when there is no independent evidence, and the only "facts" are the assertions of fallible human
beings who purport to know an unknowable truth. Knowing what I do about human nature, the very fact that all of religion
is obviously of human construct makes me very suspicious of any claims of supernatural knowledge by religious leaders.
But in a way, this is beside the point. Human morality is of concern to us all, regardless of our political or
religious persuasion. Morality has to do with how we treat each other (and in my view, how we treat other living things).
We can be moral regardless of our belief system. I personally live by the Golden Rule, which in my view is
the most fundamental element of any moral system. Some may think religion is the only way to assure morality, and perhaps
it is in certain circumstances. But I don't believe that's true in America where the rule of law usually applies.
Whatever the case, if we need to postulate a god for the purposes of a moral discussion, that's ok with me.
ESSAYS
The following presents opinion pieces regarding certain aspects of science, religion, and the nature of our social
fabric.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN (Feb 2006)
Attempts continue to be made to put the concept of Intelligent Design on a par with Darwinian Evolution. Briefly,
Intelligent Design (ID) is a religously-inspired theory that the universe was created by a supreme being (i.e. God), while
Darwinian Evolution is a scientific "theory" developed over many decades through careful observation of the natural world.
(the quotes around "theory" are deliberate as I will argue below that evolution has passed the theory stage and now must be
considered a fact, at least in terms of its most basic tenets).
The theory of ID was developed in response to court decisions affirming the seperation of church and state, thereby ruling
out the teaching of biblical creation in the science classroom. The idea behind ID was to create a "scientific" theory
of creationism that could be labeled as science instead of religion and therefore be allowed in the classroom to compete with,
(and probably replace, if it's supporters get their way), evolution.
This would be all fine and well if ID really involved science. Unfortunately, it only pretends to be science and
has not undergone the rigorous study and analysis required for any real scientific theory. ID is, in fact, very
bad science the way it is currently being practiced in that it puts the cart before the horse. ID proponents have developed the
ID theory in the absence of any real evidence (except the bible, if that can be considered evidence for a scientific, natural
theory), are not willing to entertain any competing theories based on existing and new evidence, and attempt to
twist existing evidence to support their preconceived and inflexible ID theory. So far, nearly all the arguments used
by ID proponents involve negative attacks on evolution, and no independent, verifiable studies supporting ID have ever been
done (I have a suggestion for ID proponents regarding where some serious scientific analysis could be conducted in an attempt
to prove ID exists -- see below).
It is my opinion that ID is ultimately a loosing cause. There may or may not be a god that created and oversees
our universe, but regardless which you believe, there is no excuse for ignoring or rationalizing away real facts and evidence. The
best we can do as human beings is to take truth where we find it, and at the moment, evolution is the only "theory" anyone
has come up with that adequately explains the natural world around us. If someone did come up with a non-evolutionary theory
that explained life on Earth as well as evolution does (sorry Creationists, but Intelligent Design is not it), then scientists
would seriously entertain the idea, I assure you. But no one has. Quoting one prominent scientist, "nothing in
biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Frankly, the existence of evolution is no longer theoretical,
it is real. The theory part of evolution remains in the details -- e.g. exactly which natural forces played a role in
shaping such and such particular organism.
For any Creationists who might read this, I really don't think you have any reason to feel uncomfortable with this revelation.
And here is why. Scientific evolution doesn't rule out Creationist beliefs. Can you imagine what people would
think 2000 years ago if God tried to explain in all its detail how he made the universe? How seven days is an accurate
accounting of the time it took to create Earth because time is relative (Einstein) and seven days is God's preferred reference
frame. Or that the Garden of Eden as described in the Bible was simply that place where God chose to endow humanity
with his spirit, using the raw materials of evolution which he had created to make the vessel (the use of Adam's rib to create
Eve is a reasonable metaphor for evolution in the light of what we know today). What I'm suggesting here is that,
given the realities of this Earth, as we now understand them, it is entirely reasonable that somewhat metaphorical terms
were used in the Bible when written so long ago to present the messages God wanted us to have. You're fighting a loosing
battle by not accepting these modifications to your believe system. The light of truth will prevail.
One suggestion for proponents of Intelligent Design and creationism -- if you want to try to prove your ideas, one
place to look would be the many new viral and bacterial diseases that keep cropping up. If it's true that evolution
didn't create these new varieties of life, then they must have been created supernaturally. Apparently, we have actual
examples of a supernatural entity at work and since it happens so often, one should be able to see what's happening if one
looks close enough.
The recent Intelligent Design (ID) court case in Dover, Pennsylvania clearly highlights some of the mistakes Creationists
continue to make. In this case, ID proponents lost the case because their assertions were clearly demonstrated
to be contrary to the facts. This placed them in, what I can only describe as a somewhat schizophrenic situation,
where conflicting realities caused them to do some rather strange things involving a disclaimer posted in school textbooks.
The judge in that case was a Bush appointee who, in my opinion, did a very good job of distilling the ID arguement to its
core. The excerpts presented below are from the court's decision in the case and are entirely unedited. I think
you will find them interesting reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al. : Case No. 04cv2688
:Plaintiffs : Judge Jones
v. ::
DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,::
Defendants. :
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest
evidence supporting the finding of ID’s creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which
students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE,
as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian
organization."
"By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation
science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist),
which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes
occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science
classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected
without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words
“creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas."
"defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way
of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs
showing the commonality between creationism and ID."
{footnote} "The two model approach of creationists is simply a contrived dualism which has no scientific factual basis
or legitimate educational purpose. It assumes only two explanations for the origins of life and existence of man, plants and
animals: it was either the work of a creator or it was not. Application of these two models, according to creationists, and
the defendants, dictates that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific
evidence in support of creationism and is, therefore, creation science ‘evidence[.]’"
{concerning the disclaimer about evolution posted in the school text books}
"the administrators made the remarkable and awkward statement, as
part of the disclaimer, that “there will be no other discussion of the issue and your teachers will not answer
questions on the issue.” (P-124). Dr. Alters explained that a reasonable student observer would conclude that ID is
a kind of “secret science that students apparently can’t discuss with their science teacher” which he indicated
is pedagogically “about as bad as I could possibly think of.” (14:125-27(Alters)). Unlike anything else in the
curriculum, students are under the impression that the topic to which they are introduced in the disclaimer, ID, is so sensitive
that the students and their teachers are completely barred from asking questions about it or discussing it."
"In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the
scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious
alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource,
and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction
elsewhere."
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition
on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which
is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of
science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs
the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks
on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important
to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications,
nor has it been the subject of testing and research."
"Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial
identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense
experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science”
which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."
"ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is
confirmed."
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s
argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms.
However, we believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because
scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain
them tomorrow."
"As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is ID’s alleged
scientific centerpiece. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point
conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."
"As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by
“irreducible complexity” renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the
theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts
could have evolved through natural means. Exaptation means that some precursor of the subject system had a different, selectable
function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function (16:146-48
(Padian)). For instance, Dr. Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones
as an example of this process. (17:6-17 (Padian)). By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe
attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes
his argument."
"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred
as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed
faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on Intelligent
Design, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking
inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed
through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged
into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
A PURPOSFUL GOD? (Oct. 2006)
Among those who believe in God (a god?), there is a considerable range of opinion regarding the role God plays in
our day-to-day lives. Some believe God controls nearly every aspect of our lives, while at the other end of the spectrum,
some believe God simply started the universe going, and now just stands back and watchs the result. Recent
studies involving the merging of multiple scientific disciplines to create more complex models of nature seem to shed
some light on just what God might be up against when deciding how involved to be in our daily lives.
Stuart Kauffman (professor of biocomplexity and informatics at the University of Calgary) indicates economic models might do
better if they borrow their inspiration from the field of biology rather than physics. The reason for this is biology
involves the modeling of much more complex systems than physics, and economics is just that complex. Dr. Kauffman's
work is briefly described in the November 2006 issue of Scientic American (Forum column, page 44).
What does this have to do with God's role? It's related because Dr. Kauffman's findings regarding the best ways
to deal with complex systems is the same problem God should face when deciding how involved to be in our lives. Let's
face it, the universe is the most complex thing we know about, and human beings are the most complex thing
we know about in the universe.
Dr. Kauffman's work suggests "that the level of central control over subsidiary parts of a (complex) system is an important
consideration. Too much control freezes the system into limited configurations; too little causes it to wander aimlessly.
Only systems that hover on the border between order and chaos exhibit the needed general stability and capacity to explore
the universe of possible solutions to challenges." (quote taken from SA articale mentioned above.)
If it is correct that God would have to pick a level of involvement in the world that would best meet God's purpose,
and if we also assume that God's purpose somehow involves finding "possible solutions to challenges," then we might
theorize that God's involvement in the world must, by design, hover on the border between order and chaos. Perhaps
God could control every aspect of our lives, but s/he does not want too. It's only with sufficient freedom to explore
the possibilities that we as humans can ultimately reach our potential.
We humans have room to make mistakes, and to learn from those mistakes, thereby ultimately finding possible solutions
to life's spiritual or materialistic challenges. I liken this to God having planted a garden of sorts, and s/he
may prune or water the garden from time to time, but ultimately the garden can not reach its full glory unless it blooms on
its own.
QUESTION OF THE DAY (or whenever I get around to it)
(04/09/07) Albert Einstein showed us that time does not pass at the same rate everywhere in the universe.
(If you want proof of this, check out the specs for GPS satellites which require very tiny time corrections to account
for the fact their clocks run faster than those on Earth's surface). Does the variability of time have any meaning
for us humans, in either a philosophical or practical sense?
|
