The photo at left is from the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum - which opened in 2007 in northern Kentucky. Its exhibits depict, for example, dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark. The museum’s motto is “prepare to believe.”
Meanwhile, at a May 3, 2007 political debate, three of the 10 Republican candidates for the 2008 Presidential bid — Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) — said they do not believe in evolution. Two years earlier, a 2005 poll by the Pew Trust showed 42% of respondents (the American people this time) expressing a belief that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.
Now two pyschologists at Yale - Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg - have presented a paper in Science called Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science. You need a subscription to read the full text in Science, but you can find a great and lucid summing-up piece from Bloom and Weisberg themselves in Edge: Why Do Some People Resist Science?
Apparently, resistance to science is not only about stakeholders protecting their interests.
Bloom and Weisberg report that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. They say this resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy.
By the way, that 2005 Pew poll produced the illustration above. That poll came from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. There’s some very interesting reading there as well.
with insanity like that, they won’t be receiving my attention, much less a vote.
Hi jdw242b … good point. If only everyone felt like you!
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian family, but for various reasons I have believed in evolution since a very early age. As my understanding of science grew I lost all faith in the supernatural, and at times this has put me at odds with my fundamentalist parents and siblings. Despite this I believe that my family generally respects me and my beliefs because I have always made every effort to respect theirs even when we disagree.
Christians often feel that their culture is under attack and their knee jerk reaction is often to attack back with rejection of any ideas that they perceive as disagreeing with their philosophy. I think that the schism between science and faith is aggravated by the perception of disrespect on both sides.
There is really no need for science and faith to be at odds since they are completely different disciplines. Science is based upon proof and faith is based upon belief which does not require proof. I remember an illustration by a minister about the difference in faith and knowledge: “Here in the front row we can all see the Jones family – Mr. and Mrs. Jones and all of the Jones children. Now Mrs. Jones KNOWS that those are all her children, while Mr. Jones has FAITH that they are all his.” You see, no conflict is really necessary between faith and knowledge, but they aren’t the same thing. It’s just hard to get past the anger and disrespect that we have already built up in our country.
I apologize that my comment is longer than your post, but this is a big subject for me.
David, please don’t apologize. Your voice is always welcome here.
I had a bit of an opposite experience from you. I grew up in a family that was not terribly religious but that highly valued intellectual learning. As I grew older, I came to have a strong faith in the supernatural … certainly in God.
I agree with you. There is really no need for science and faith to be at odds.
Deborah
I would like to add that I don’t believe in evolution either…
However I do find the evidence supporting evolution overwhelming in scope and irrefutable.
“… What makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and their wings push inward.” - Richard Feynman
I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. Sam made his position perfectly clear. If god believes in evolution, then Sam believes in evolution. If god doesn’t believe in evolution, then Sam doesn’t believe in evolution either.
John, you mean Sam Brownback? The Kansas senator who said he doesn’t believe in evolution? Is that what he said?
*** Multiple Articles ***
During this century, science has greatly increased our knowledge of the natural world around us. Its telescopes have revealed the awesome wonders of the starry heavens, just as its microscopes have disclosed the amazing complexities of molecules and atoms. The marvels of design in plants and animals, the wisdom reflected in our own fearfully and wonderfully made bodies—this knowledge also comes to us through the discoveries of hardworking scientists. We are not unappreciative.
But there is another side to science. Not all its practitioners measure up to the image of the objective, passionate pursuers of truth, regardless of where it might lead. There are too many scientists who select the material that supports their theory and discard what doesn’t. They report studies they have never made and experiments they have never performed, and they fake what they cannot establish. They plagiarize the writings of fellow scientists. Many claim authorship of articles they have never worked on and maybe have never even seen!
Flagrant fraud may be rare, but some of the manipulating of data mentioned above is common. Even more common, however, are two additional kinds of fraud, both involving deceitful propaganda. The four articles that follow examine the problem.
*** g90 1/22 p. 3 Fraud in Science—It Makes the Headlines ***
The image of scientists as invariably dedicated to truth has been tarnished, as these headlined items show. ***
“Ethics in Science”
“A fight is building in the U.S. House of Representatives over fraud, misconduct, and conflict of interest in science.”—Science, July 7, 1989.
***
“Two New Studies Ask Why Scientists Cheat”
“It was an innocent enough question: how do scientists behave when no one is looking? But it has produced an incendiary answer: not too well, reports a paper this month in the British journal Nature.”—Newsweek, February 2, 1987.
***
“The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Fossils”
“A prominent Australian scientist has examined two decades of work on ancient Himalayan geology and alleges it may be the greatest paleontological fraud of all time.”—Science, April 21, 1989.
“Now It’s the Journals’ Turn on the Firing Line”
“[He was speaking] specifically about how poorly many [science] journals have handled scientific fraud. . . . The same message previously dispatched to other members of the scientific community has now been addressed to the journals: clean up your act or you may find legislators getting into it.”—The AAAS Observer, July 7, 1989
***
“Do Scientists Cheat?”
“After the initial inquiry by this [congressional] committee into this subject, the committee has had growing reason to believe that we are only seeing the tip of a very unfortunate, dangerous, and important iceberg.”—NOVA broadcast on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) on October 25, 1988.
*** w90 2/15 p. 28 Insight on the News ***
“Hijacking Fossils”
Under that title, the French daily Le Monde reported the case of a paleontologist in India who “for 20 years . . . apparently deceived his colleagues concerning the origin of fossils that he submitted to them for their appraisal.” It is claimed that the “hijacking” consisted of sending them fossils obtained in the United States, Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the British Isles, saying they had been discovered in the Himalaya Mountains. This scientist published his findings in over 300 articles. The fraud was brought to light by an Australian scientist via the British scientific journal Nature. He wondered ‘how it could be that such a large quantity of doubtful findings remained unchallenged for such a long time.’
One possible reason, according to Le Monde, was the law of silence heeded by many members of the scientific community. The article noted that this fossil “hijacking” has “made useless practically all the facts accumulated [over the past 20 years] on the geology of the Himalayas.”
Obviously, this new case of fraud in science does not cast doubt on the entire scientific world. It does, however, provide further evidence that arguments of paleontology when pitted against the unfailing accuracy of the Bible record are often nothing more than what the apostle Paul called “the contradictions of the ‘knowledge’ which is not knowledge at all.”—1 Timothy 6:20, The New Jerusalem Bible.
***Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase
“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.” So opened the article “Publish or Perish—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report. To escape perishing, many scientific researchers are faking it.
The pressure on scientists to publish in scientific journals is overwhelming. The longer the list of published papers to the researcher’s name, the better his chances for employment, promotion, tenure in a university, and government grants to finance his research. The federal government “controls the largest source of research funding, $5.6 [thousand million] a year from the National Institutes of Health.”
Because “the scientific community shows little stomach for confronting its ethical dilemma,” “has been strangely reluctant to probe too deeply for hard data about its ethical conduct,” and “isn’t keen about cleaning house or even looking closely for malfeasance,” congressional committees have held hearings and considered legislation to do the job of policing for them. (New Scientist; U.S.News & World Report) This prospect wrings from scientists much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet, one science journal asks and answers the question: “Is the house of science clean and in order? The bit of evidence that reaches the public invites serious doubts.”
Some researchers eliminate data that does not support what they want to prove (called cooking); report more tests or trials than were actually run (called trimming); appropriate for their own use data or ideas of other researchers (called plagiarism); and make up experiments or data they never performed or produced (called forging). A cartoon in a science journal poked fun at this last tactic, one scientist talking to another and saying of a third: ‘He’s published a lot since he took up that creative writing course.’
“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-or-perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.”
Marilyn,
Science might not be perfect.
But it’s the best we have at revealing some kinds of truth about the natural world.
Many thanks for sharing your comments.
Deborah
Hi Deborah,
I hope my entry does not come across as argumentative (probably a bad opening sentence) but I would like to ask whether or not I can be pointed toward scientific evidence of evolution that is difficult to circumvent. I’ve been trying to find some actual evidence of evolution and have yet been unsuccessful. Any evidences that I have come across are far from shoe-ins, and so, the theory of evolution remains merely a theory. I remain open-minded on the topic and do not believe that the theory moving into the realm of fact necessarily negates the peaceful co-existence of faith and science (I actually believe them to be irreversibly intertwined) but I have yet to see actual evidences which would then move the theory of evolution into proven scientific fact which in turn would end the debate. Secondly, if there are no irrefutable evidences of the theory being fact then how does a person come to believe it as true? I’m assuming that the question “Do you believe in evolution” is an attempt to ascertain whether or not an individual believes the claims within the evolutionary theory as facts. So, if someone claims,”Yes, I do believe in evolution” then they must have evidences toward the factuality of the theory. We are talking about the realm of science here, not philosophy, literature or history and at this time I do not feel that I have enough evidence to make up my mind to believe the theory is factual. So, I have no “reason” to believe the theory is fact. And, in so saying, I suppose I agree with the 3 politicians noted above. I, and perhaps they, have no “reason” to believe in the theory as more than it is - a theory. And if there is a reason (seriously… a real reason) for them to believe the theory is factual I REALLY want to know what it is. I continue to have an open mind on the subject.
I like your site. Thanks for posting intresting topics.
Phil
Science and faith cannot be examined at the same level.
A religion, a belief is something that does not ask for evidence nor demonstration to be believed. It is not rational. A belief won’t be proven, nor demonstrated.
A scientific conclusion is proven, is rational, needs demonstration in order to be validated.
It is impossible to mix science and faith, since processes aren’t the same at all.
Welcome Phil and Bert. I’m not an expert in the evidence for or against evolution. Perhaps someone else here can point us in that direction.
I will say that - in this day and age - I see evidence of all kinds (evidence for human-caused global warming, for example) being circumvented with all sorts of silly and fallacious arguments. It’s like in any relationship, I suppose. Everyone has their own version of the truth, and everyone believes what they want.
I can only speak for myself, but, even without having my hands on “irrefutable proof,” I believe evolution is true. Perhaps evolution as we know it is not true in all its details, but I believe scientists have captured its essential truth and will learn more in the years to come. Why does this seem like truth to me? It feels true because it resonates with what I know about the universe (my background is astronomy). The slow passage of billions of years. The constant change and growth. It resonates with what I observe in my own life … everything evolves.
I nearly forgot! A year ago, Earth & Sky ran an interesting post on reconciling scientific data with Biblical data. Many scientists gave their views. Interesting reading!
Thank you all for this good discussion.
Deborah
This is a very interesting debate. Charles Darwin propounded the theory of evolution after 20 years of research. Being a devout Christain, he wrestled with his conscience for many years before publishing his results. There is an interesting book by Melyvn Bragg which provides summaries of the top 10 books of all time ( his list). Includes interestingly enough both Charles Darwin and the King James Bible. This book captures the gist of Darwin’s research in simple terms for those interested. Further we can see evolution in action today - viruses becoming resistant to anitbiotics and other treatment - which is an example of a living thing adapting to its environment in a bid to survive. There are also other examples from the insect world and I am sure that as global warming accelearates changes in environment, we can definitely observe evolution in real time.
Bert could not be more wrong when he states that “A religion, a belief is something that does not ask for evidence nor demonstration to be believed. It is not rational. A belief won’t be proven, nor demonstrated.” Any belief must be based on something. Otherwise there is no “reason” to believe it and is thus unreasonable - religion or science. Religious belief is not based on nothing. Stateing that religious belief is based on nothing is silly. A quick example - there is a book that we call “The Bible”. The bible is in reality a collection of several types of literature that was written by multiple authors over a huge span of time. Parts of those writings are historical texts detailing events that transpired in the past. The details of those events have led many people toward a belief in God. Many parts of the biblical text are scientifically proven to be much more accurate than other historical texts whose authenticity and factuality has not been in question. So, these texts, collected together as what we call the bible, do indeed serve as great evidence toward a God. Anyone claiming to believe anything, scientific or philosophical, without “reason” is unreasonable. Does any evidence exist for “man caused” global warming? Does any evidence exist for moving the theory of evolution out of its theoretical status? If so, let’s see the evidence. Any belief without evidence is unreasonable. So, show me the evidence and and I will believe. If people writing on this list believe it then they must have reasons to believe it. Of course, belief is a matter of will. So, people may choose to believe or choose to disbelieve. Such is the case with every realm of knowledge and belief, not merely religion. So, now I ask specifically for the evidence that has shown people that have responded to this list that they should decide to believe that the theory of evolution is indeed true so that I may have the oportunity to believe it as they do. And if they do not have evidence to believe yet they choose to do so anyway then they are engaging in the exact behavior that Bert says is the realm for the religious and they are guilty of the very thing the three politicians above are being ridiculed for. For my beliefs I can show you evidences. Where I see no evidence I choose not to believe. Doing otherwise in any realm is unreasonable.
Thanks again,
Phil
Generally when someone brings up the topic of evolutionary theory they are referring to inter-species or macro-evolution not intra-species or micro-evolution. I have differnt colored hair than my children. Does that mean that men were once fish? No, but it does mean that offspring are not identical to their parents. I did not think that when the topic of evolutionary theory was brought up we were talking about this level of change. Is this level of mutation sufficient as evidence for inter-species mutation?
Phil
As one who teaches both astronomy and English at the university level (as an adjunct instructor), I find the evolution debate clouded by the often unintentional misuse of terminology. There is a critical distinction between the process of evolution and the theory of how that process works. This distinction is often lost when people interchangeably use the terms “evolution” or “theory of evolution.”
Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Scientific observation has demonstrated this factualness. What is a “theory” is the understanding of the process by which evolution occurs. Darwin, from observations made during his celebrated voyage, constructed the foundation of what we call the “theory of evolution.” This theory has withstood repeated scientific challenges, though it has incorporated modifications. In a similar fashion, standard big bang cosmology was modified by Linde, Guth and others in the early 1980s via inflation to explain more fully the following: how density differences could arise from quantum ripples; the “horizon” problem (the number and size of density fluctuations on both sides of the sky are similar, yet they are separated by a distance that is greater than the speed of light times the age of the universe); and the geometry of the universe, aka the “flatness” problem. Data returned by the COBE and WMAP (in particular) probes in the 1990s have verified aspects of the theory.
One final comment about evolution: People have a tendency to fixate on fossils (the intriguing but ultimately absurd Creation Museum in Kentucky that shows humans and dinosaurs co-existing). Though paleontological work continues (and recent fossil finds actually have bolstered evidence for evolution), it is the work of molecular cell biologists and geneticists that has verified evolution as fact and is pointing the way to a clearer understanding of how evolution works.
The two greatest theories of the 20th century were quantum theory and general theory of relativity. Though Darwin’s theory is one of the greatest of the 19th century, I think that a fully realized theory will manifest sometime in this century, based in large part on the molecular work now being done.
Lloyd,
As one who is trying to understand this I emplore you, someone who has stated that evolution is fact, to please explain to me how you know this to be true. You state,”Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Scientific observation has demonstrated this factualness.” yet you present no scientific data here for me to investigate. I have an open mind on the topic but I will require evidence of evolution’s factuality before being able to see it as such. And, by evolution, are you referring to inter-species mutations as is generally assumed? Can you point me to the work you refer to when you state,”the work of molecular cell biologists and geneticists that has verified evolution as fact”? Pretty please?
Thank you in advance,
Phil
I just saw the exhibit Body Worlds *http://www.bodyworlds.com/en.html* in Dallas (exhibit is no longer there), which is an exhibit that explores the amazing details, functions and intricacies of the human body through the display of actual cadavers whose decay has been halted by a process called Plastination. There is not one blood vessel, valve or bone fragment unexplored. One cool factoid: if you stretch one human body’s blood vessels from end to end, they would wrap around the equator - twice!
I say all this to make this point: Why do we have to separate the beauty of science and faith. I don’t think any higher being intends us to think of them as mutually exclusive. In fact, the fascinating scientific discoveries we learn about everyday should only support the idea that there may be something more powerful than ourselves…beyond ourselves.
Katie, I agree completely!
Deborah
The interesting part of the anti-evolution postings here are the multiple statements “there is no evidence for evolution” or “I haven’t seen any proof of evolution.” The reason you haven’t seen the proof or evidence is that you haven’t looked. When archaeopteryx was discovered, the fundamentalists immediatly labeled it a fraud or just another bird (that was probably wiped out in the Noah’s flood). Since many of you use the Bible as your proof of the existence of God, read the first chapter of Genesis. Then explain how there can be daylight and darkess on the first day but the sun didn’t exist until the third day. Also, Genesis says that God made all the animals and then humans (”Man and woman created he them”). But in the next sentence says he made Adam first then made the animals and brought them to him to name and only then noticed that Adam was lonely. This is only the first of hundreds of glaring contradictions of this “Holy” book. I also just read “The God Argument” that stated you prove the existence of God by eliminating all the other possibilities. This is akin to anchient peoples saying “you can’t explain lightning, so it must be God making his campfire. In short, evolution has been PROVEN many times over. The preponderance of evidence for evolution is gargantuan. The proof of a supernatural being is non-existant.
Ben
Ben, yes, I agree. I don’t understand why one sort of proof works for some people … and another sort of proof does not work. It seems that, today, anyone can “prove” pretty much anything they want to. There are all sorts of postings on the internet, for example, to use as “proof” for totally contradicting things!
I think it’s lovely that faith doesn’t require proof. The exercise of faith, in the absence of proof, is one of life’s great beauties.
I believe some things are meant to be a mystery. If we knew via proof that God exists, how could we choose to believe?
Deborah
I agree with David and Bert, there should be a mutual respect of beliefs and understanding that religion and science don’t have to agree for either to be true. It’s all tied to our freeedom of expression and beliefs. I don’t understand why in our country everything has to be rationalized to the very minute detail, given an explanation, debated endlessly, etc., etc.,etc…. in other places it just is what it is.
Chet Raymo has a relevant post today to what we’re discussing … it’s called The Burden of Thinking …
Enjoyed “The Burden of Thinking” by Chet Raymo, also the author of a fine introductory astronomy book entitled 365 STARRY NIGHTS. Thanks for sharing!
You’re welcome. Chet is a fount of great blog posts …
Maybe it’s not that some people resist science, it’s that science resists some people.
Judging from Tom Tancredo’s record, it’s likely he resists all forms of knowledge.
I, for one, am not anti-evolution any more than I am anti anything that I am not convinced of. I haven’t thought the posts here are particularly anti-evolution. At the same time, the claim by Ben Peeler concerning archaeopteryx is not incontrovertible evidence that evolution is fact. It is a hotly debated issue and there are many problems with it. Just do a quick google on it. Ben also has no idea what evidences others have looked at before they came to a decision as to whether evolution is actually taking place. Again, I am not pre-disposed to opposing evolution. I have merely not found evidence to push me into the camp of people that claim it as truth. Just as I remain unconvinced that marriage between gay couples is the downfall of mankind, that a universal ban of firearms will eliminate crime and murder, that the Christian Trinity as defined by particular Christians is actually supported in the biblical or even the extra-biblical texts or that fusion reaction is containable and controllable. By the way, the existence of a single example of a single fossil that is highly contested and believed forged by a large number of experts is not very high-quality evidence for something. And, even if the archaeopteryx debate swings to the favor of the pro-evolutionary argument it still does not strongly support evolution. It is very weak evidence at best as a single example of a strange creature. Now, show me several such inter-species examples and now you’ve got something for me to sink my teeth into. Or, as mentioned by Lloyd earlier, show me the pro-evolutionary evidence developing from the research in the arena of molecular cell biology and perhaps I’ll move into the pro-evolution camp.
Deborah, you state that “one sort of proof works for some people … and another sort of proof does not work.” That is exactly what I am saying is troublesome. And I am saying that people that ridicule the politicians you mention above for not believing in evolution have the burden of proof on their shoulders. Yes, I am from Missouri and I always chuckle to myself when I get to use the state motto. So “show me” how I can believe that inter-species evolution is factual and I will believe it.
I think Chet’s article was right on. I did not infer from Chet’s post that we should blindly leap into belief but that we should be open minded enough to CHANGE OUR MINDS. I could not possibly agree more. But a change of mind requires a reason for the mind to change. I tell my Christian acquaintances the same thing concerning their adamant beliefs concerning the sanctity of marriage. People have to SHOW others why their belief is important enough for others to agree with.
Phil
Phil Pettis says about the events recorded in the Bible: ” The details of those events have led many people toward a belief in God. … So, these texts, collected together as what we call the bible, do indeed serve as great evidence toward a God.”
I don’t think this is much of a case for God.
The Old Testament is a a weird and wonderful collection of histories of the Jewish tribe and their jealous God, who seems much given to wreaking pain and suffering on anyone standing in the way of Himself or his chosen people.
The New Testament has some more morally acceptable ideas about love and sharing, but what does it prove about Jesus being more than a man? You take the word of a few devotees writing many years later about miracles and resurrection? You go along with some mistranslation that leads to stories of Jesus brought into the world by virgin birth?
Science is challengeable by evidence. You never prove a theory, but you can make predictions from theory and test whether it works well enough - until something better comes along. Religious faith just isn’t like that.
It’s nice to think Science and religion can just rub along as mutually respectful friends. But then people of unreasoned faith start telling us that the old creation stories really are true - and we’ll burn in Hell for not believing sdo ourselves. Or they lead their nations to war (Bush, Blair) because their faith tells them it’s the moral thing to do.
You don’t need the distraction of faith to see the reality of existence - both good and bad.
this topic reminds me that all groups want to ignore certain topics of scientific discovery. a notable area is the study of human dna to reveal things such as a likelyhood of disease. yet the same science can prove that some people may have a higher likelyhood of being violent or have anti social behavior. yet this is being swept aside because of certain problems with…well if you think about it you can see what im getting at. but this science could actually help society as a whole by attempting to, well,set up a different procesof education in order to turn away such behavior at an early age. its not just republicans that want to ignore science.
Sam, I don’t think science has been able to prove via DNA, with an certainty, which individuals will exhibit anti-social behavior. The social sciences aren’t as hard and fast as the physical sciences, and research into the human genome - in all its intricacies - is only now beginning …
This is a great discussion everyone, thank you. Reason … belief … truth … all slippery concepts.
Deborah
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck — and those are the only pieces of physical or sensory evidence we have to go on — I’d bet my money that it *is* a duck rather than an elephant. And yet we know that there can always be circumstances of which we are unaware that could change the apparent “truth” of a situation. We could have been secretly hypnotized to view any elephants we see as ducks. Or an alien could have arrived here from the planet Gubditz and on a whim gave all elephants feathers and a bill, and nicknamed them all Daffy and Donald. According to quantum physics (although some physicists will grimace at this), it is not entirely impossible that Nature could suddenly and spontaneously “transport” you to a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy. Improbable as it is, it isn’t impossible. I have read that physicist Michio Kaku has asked students on a final exam to calculate the probability of something like this actually happening (yes, there is an equation).
The bottom line is that almost anything is possible, but not everything is likely. The true role of science is to cull through the variety of possible explanations to find those that are most likely, that explain the most aspects of a phenomenon, that include a plausible and physically explanable mechanism of operation, that require the fewest number of assumptions, and that are supported by the greatest amount of physical evidence. Science cannot give ultimate answers for everything because there are so many possibilities, but it can give the most reasonable answers.
Natural selection is a fact. It has been observed in the wild. Human-directed evolution is one of the most demonstrated “truths” in science. Most of the food you eat is a result. Your dog or cat or any other domesticated animal also is a result. Their existence follows the rules of genetics.
Darwinian evolution from lower species to higher species is a theory only in the sense that no one was there to document it happening, but there is enough physical evidence left over that many scientists consider it a proven “law” of Nature. It does not prove that God does not exist, although it is in contradiction to specific concepts and claims of some religions. Incontrovertably, one thing science *does* do is force those who deny it to ignore that big pink elephant in the corner, or else to agonize over the distrubing idea that God would leave so much false and misleading evidence around. I, for one, do not believe that He did.
Larry S.
I’m reminded of Johannes Kepler who stated, “The boundary posts of investigation should not be set up in the narrow minds of a few men . . . Antiquity teaches us by examples how vainly man sets up boundary posts where God has not set them . . .”
Bruce
To respond to Phil’s request for specific evidence of evolution, I did a short search and came up with the following sites that exhibit ligitimacy through academic credentials, institutional authority, or specific citations of scientific literature.
A nice overview from Palomar College.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
Another interesting site with citations.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
Another concise overview from the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
This speaks to the molecular evidence (and is part of a larger discussion on evolution).
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage13.html
A well-documented series (with specific literature citations) of posts concerning evidence for evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html#endosymbiosis
I think these sites should provide a reasonable introduction to specific examples that many of us have been discussing in more general terms.
Lloyd
Lloyd, thank you so much!
Deborah
behavioral genetics is both proven, and true.it is simply taboo,. unless you think about it then look for it and i do not speak of looking on wikipedia. i understand the reasoning behind reluctance to follow thru with the research,yet i find it depressing why it has fallen aside.humans are animals or if you like lifeforms of earth. lets look at dogs (as an example of a long long list if you think about where im going here)some breeds are docile and bred for this trait, some are aggressive and bred for this trait,cats apes fish etc.etc. this idea is where behavioral genetics stems. it is abhorrent to the liberal or higher thinking mind to believe that all humans are anything but the same… all i know IMHO is that there are the way things should be and there are the way things are. rep or dem or (i wish isolationists could come back)all groups have things scientific that they for whatever reason they wish to ignore.its the higher mind that wants…i mean WANTS to learn more about that drives intelligence.we can all throw mud at each other to fuel our own belief yet in the end those that follow will see our shortcomings and folly.we all believe we know everything (myself included) yet we really know only what our simian brains tell us is our own truth. my truth is that i know nothing yet i try to know more every day i am allowed to learn. thank goodness there are others willing to think about the same things. it validates our rule of this epoch of earths history.
well i have been away for a week so i suppose everyone was either looking up behav. gen. or looking up the latest on the blonds jail dispute…anyway if you go to i_am_bored.com and look at bears begging for food you will be so very heart broken i know i was sick to my stomach at seeing this. i hope that people lose the war with nature.gaia or mother earth will tire of our antics and banish us replacing mankind with cephelopods.if i got that right i meant octopi.
Dear Deborah and Friends All,
Perhaps the human community could derive vital benefits from the organization of an international forum for the expression of ideas and the promulgation of policies related to another tabooed topic: the potentially profound implications of the fully anticipated scale and growth rate of global human production, consumption and propagation behaviors for the future of life as we know it as well as for the integrity of Earth as a fit place for human habitation, even to the year 2025.
Please consider the following paper, and the proposal in the Science Magazine article, just below.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/august4/esa-84.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5734/562
I believe an action plan implementing the proposal from two of our most eminent scientists, Donald Kennedy and Paul Ehrlich, is vital now and long overdue.
Sincerely yours,
Steve
Dear Friends,
If speaking out loudly and clearly about good evidence from the best available science, that most wondrous gift to humanity from God, is allowed to be falsely identified and perniciously rejected as the behavior of an unrealistic alarmist or a silly chicken-little, then perhaps “all IS lost,” as Deborah has put it so well elsewhere. At least one unfortunate result of such a colossal misunderstanding could be that the self-proclaimed masters of the universe among us, the modern heirs of Ozymandias, will have their way with the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit and, I suppose, will proceed by means of their sponsorship of rapidly expanding business-as-usual activities to overwhelm the Earth with ubiquitous adulterated effects of unbridled human enterprise.
Always,
Steve
Steve. sorry to link to my own post here, but - speaking of changing in human behavior - I think you’ll enjoy this video featuring wombat wisdom …
Hi Deborah,
Here come the wombats….finally.
We need wombat wisdom now more than ever before, I suppose. Thanks for making us aware of the wombats. Could we at least begin to hope that the nincompoops who are the powerbrokers and managers of the patently unsustainable human activities now overwhelming the Earth, are soon to be replaced by wombats? Perhaps no more than a million wombats are needed.
Always,
Steve
Dear Deborah and Friends,
How might the wombats respond to the following questions?
1) Who among the living can know that a particular species, even the human species, is doomed? How is it possible for any one of us to have certain knowledge of such a thing? If we choose to believe such a thing and act as we are now, does the potential for species extinction not become a self-fulfilling prophecy?
2) Is silence golden? Is the deafening silence we hear (i.e., elective mutism) somehow useful to humankind or does it simply provide things that are regarded as temporarily golden by the few among us who are wealthy and powerful: the ones who endlessly increase their many comforts, mortgage the future of our children and, in effect, forsake them?
3) Without becoming insouciant and despite the lack of institutional support, would it be an exercise of personal soundness and, perhaps, wisdom to make a case in the strongest possible terms for a human being’s “duty to warn” humanity of whatsoever dangers appear to loom before us and, by so doing, begin the vital process of acknowledging, addressing and overcoming actual challenges to a good enough future for our children and coming generations?
Somehow, hopefully sooner rather than later, profound individual “resistance” to the best available, good science will diminish and willful ignorance will no longer prevail.
Sincerely,
Steve
I hold a science degree and one thing that amazies me is how people who are educated seem to forget what they learned in college about science. I can understand about politicans who constantly have to pander to uneducated or one minded people. To be on the other side of politicans, they also had to take some science toward their degree of ?? Simple things like glycolsis. If you took a biology course in college, you had to study glycolsis! I for one would encourage a strong background in science, math for all students from elementary to collge.
Dear A. P. Garcia,
It pleases me so to see that you do not resist science and that
your eyes are working just as intended;
you are of sound mind;
you can think for yourself; and
you have demonstrated an adequate capacity for experience.
Your eyes are showing you things about the human species and the world we inhabit…..things many brothers and sisters among us, the ‘many too many’ who are embedded in the predominant culture, are not yet seeing.
Imagine for a moment that you have awakened early this very morning, just before dawn. Recall the quality of darkness just before dawn. You cannot see anything. Almost everyone else you know or have ever known is not stirring; they remain asleep.
With the coming of dawn the world begins to become visible. You see things you have seen every day of your life. But on this morning, for the first time, everything about the familiar landscape is somehow unexpectedly different, thanks to good science. Once those who are asleep awaken, they will also see in a new way that which is completely unanticipated in the unchanged landscape.
With thanks to you and to others appreciative of science and willing to accept responsibility for what the best available, good scientific evidence has wondrously gifted to us,
Steve
Human Population Health Statistics, with explanatory power,
http://www.okananter.com/wordpress/?p=21
Always,
Steve
While I would prefer NOT to diss politicians, many of them who are primary beneficiaries of the ‘first’ world’s political economy appear to suffer from what has been named a “nature deficit disorder.” Indeed, many too many leaders among us in the developed world seem to have lost touch not only with the natural world but also with good science and humanity. Who knows, perhaps the empire-builders and politicians and mass media moguls of the dominant, industrialized culture of conglomerates have become utterly mesmerized and generally misdirected in their relentless, unbridled pursuit of the golden calf.
After all, we know that several hundred leaders, often serving on multiple executive committees and boards of directors in quasi-secret organizations like The Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group and Council on Foreign Relations, exert extraordinary influence upon politicians and minions in the mass media through their billion dollar bank accounts. They manage the world’s interlocking national economies and direct the course of economic globalization. At least to me, these leaders appear to be leading a charge that could inadvertently squash and utterly subordinate the sacred of this world to the profane………… with potentially intolerable consequences for the future of life on Earth.
At its current scale and anticipated rate of growth, the continuous expansion of the world economy we see today may be approaching a point in human history when unbridled production, unchecked per human consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers could overwhelm the limited natural resources and frangible ecosystem services of Earth, upon which life itself depends for it very existence.
Is it not the circumstances of unrestrained, human-driven “overgrowth” activities worldwide that need to change? Perhaps leaders are now called upon to lead by regulating the global growth of human numbers, per capita consumption and endlessly expanding production capabitities so that we find a balanced relationship with nature and, consequently, give this marvelous planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit the time it requires for self-renewal. In our time, people are dissipating more resources than can be restored by the Earth for human benefit.
Or we could choose to stay the current “business as usual” course by maximally increasing production and recklessly dissipating limited natural resources, thereby causing economic globalization to continuously grow in a patently unsustainable way. Then distinctly human over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities would commandeer remaining original wildlife habitats, massively extirpate biodiversity, degrade fragile ecosystems and, very shortly, engulf the planet, would they not?
One primary concern of mine — that needs not to be bound up in silence — is that politicians, their billionaire club business benefactors and their minions in the mass media have themselves introduced a “code of silence” regarding what is being discussed in this blog and similarly situated vehicles of communication. They will NOT openly discuss one topic: the maintenance of the integrity of Earth’s ecosphere, its biodiversity and its natural resources. They do not speak publicly about good scientific data indicating that the current scale and rate of growth of seemingly endless economic expansion could become a patently unsustainable enterprise in the next decade of this century. Can you find public presentations by these self-proclaimed masters of the universe on the potential threats of biodiversity extinction, environmental collapse and, perhaps, human endangerment that could soon be posed by their willful determination to continue the unbridled, maximal extension of BIG business activities worldwide?
Until now, such discussions as this one could not be maintained and, for the moment, remain marginalized from mainstream, mass media communication. Even so, the times………..they are changing, thanks to people like Deborah Byrd. More and more people are speaking out loudly and clearly for good science humanity and the preservation of the Earth, and being heard despite the deafening silence that still surrounds us.
This is only a guess, but one day soon the word ECOLOGY will be spoken in mainstream, public discourse as freely, forcefully and often as the word ECONOMY. One day I believe many leaders among us will substitute the word ECOLOGY for the word ECONOMY in the following sentence.
DO NOT DO ANYTHING THAT HARMS THE WORLD’S _______.
Its no wonder people resist science, look at how much science is required to graduate from high school. Then they are passed not knowing science or any subject. Look at Jay Leno’s segment called “Jaywalking” to see how much people don’t know. This includes even “College Grads”. It amazes me how much reporters don’t know when they write about science. It seems they forgot everything they learned about science while in college.
It would be tough for people nowadays to learn enough science to be conversant in all the sciences. There are so many different avenues of study, and some are very technical. If there were one thing I would wish to get across to people, it’s that science is a process. It’s a way of looking at the world, based on empirical evidence and logical thinking. It’s not a body of facts.
Maybe if people thought of science as a process, instead of a body of facts, they would realize that scientists are only human.
And then maybe people would respect science more, and hear what it has to say.
Deborah
Of all people, scientists cannot be found resisting good science.
The unwillingness of scientists to see, to hear and to speak of good scientific evidence is an incomprehensible omission of incalculable import for the future of life and the maintenance of the integrity of Earth.
Science enjoins scientists to discharge their duties and responsibilities to it, does it not? According to the best available scientific evidence, whatsoever is is, is it not? If people everywhere are to see and hear what God’s gift of science provides us, then I suppose scientists will have to speak out often and more clearly, so that the problems posed to humanity by the unbridled growth of the human species in Century XXI are acknowledged, addressed and overcome.
On the other hand, silence from scientists in response to the apparently unforeseen, new science of human population dynamics and absolute global human population numbers could result in humankind inadvertently laying waste to that which many too many leaders in my not-so-great generation of elders vociferously claim to be protecting, sustaining and preserving.
Sincerely,
Steve
Would you agree the first time humanity fails to solve the problems on Earth that WE create could be the last time we fail? At least to this point in time, it looks to me as if humankind has an unblemished record of achievements.
Of course, past prosperity is no guarantee of favorable outcomes in the future; however, I am placing my faith in humankind.
As many are likely aware, quite a large number of people, inside and outside of science, have suggested that the human experiment of the 21st century reminds them of the first and last voyage of the Titanic.
If, indeed, humankind finds itself in command of a ship, “Century XXI Human Experiment,” and also has good, virtually irrefutable scientific evidence that this ship could soon strike the iceberg, already visible on the far horizon, would you agree that reasonable and sensible people immediately open discussions regarding a change in the ship’s course?
Or are people and life as we know it better served by accelerating the ship’s speed, reinforcing the ship by making the it larger, maintaining a code of silence, and staying the current course….steady as it goes?
As ever,
Steve
Hi to all,
Perhaps a question is useful here. Can you think of a time in recorded history when a single generation, like my own, has so efficiently ravaged the finite resources of the Earth, so conspicuously consumed what it has self-righteously commandeered, so polluted the environment and left so little of what is sacred for its own children and coming generations? And, of all things, we call ourselves masters of the universe and the greatest generation while we religiously pursue this “primrose path,” one that mainly diminishes life, degrades the planet and glorifies the profane.
The distinctly human behaviors of 1) per capita overconsumption, 2) the seemingly endless increase of industrialization and economic globalization in a relatively small world with limited resources and frangible ecosystem services and 3) overpopulation, to which I draw attention, do look as if they are reasonably and sensibly apprehended as approaching a point in time when they can be described as peculiar, suspicious, off-centered, unbalanced and of a questionable nature.
With hope for open discussion,
Steve
Question: Why do some people resist science?
Answer: Maybe because is difficult to understand
the interpretation of physics given by scientists.
==============
Do physicists understand physics?
All the sources of physics are created on abstract ideas:
inertial motion, inertial reference system, ideal gas,
absolute black body,
negative four-dimensional ( Minkowski) space,
“a method of renormalization”, etc.
===========================
1.
G. Galileo has shown that natural motion is ‘inertial’
but nobody knows what is ‘ inertial motion’.
2.
G. Maxwell aspired to explain electromagnetic processes from
mechanical point of view, using cogwheels and wheels.
3.
L, Boltzmann admired the equations of Maxwell and he tried
to improve Maxwell’s mechanical model.
4.
H. Hertz practically discovered electromagnetic waves
but he has declared in writing that the electromagnetic
waves have no practical importance.
Later, he wrote about the equation of Maxwell:
“…that they are wiser than we ourselves,
even wiser than their first-discovers…”
5.
“We did more than have understood”.
/Rutherford/
6.
M. Planck almost for 20 years searched arguments
against his theory of the light quanta.
7.
“The more successes the quantum physics gains,
the more senseless it looks”.
/Einstein/
8.
Everything is getting along, but the deep grounds remain unclear”.
/ Sommerfeld /
9.
“I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics”.
/Feynman/
10.
What the fine structure constant ‘a’ means nobody knows
and on Feynman’s expression this quantity is
‘by the god given damnation to all physicists’.
11.
Robert Milliken told, that he knew nothing
about “last essence of electron”.
This remains unknown also today.
12.
etc.
=========================
How do the physicists want to solve these problems?
a)
They try to create new theories.
But if the base of the first floor (classic)
and second floor (quantum) of physics is abstract
what can we expect from the new theories?
b)
They try to find the first, initial particle.
In 1906, Lord Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him to understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists:
‘ Bomb them stronger’.
And physicists created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum,
in hoping to understand their inner structure.
And they were surprised with the results of this bombing.
Several hundreds of completely new strange particles appeared.
They lived for a very little time and do not relate to our world.
Our Earth needs another constants of nature.
But physicists are proud of their work. They say:
we study the inner structure of the particles.
The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicists think, that an accelerator is first of all
the presence of huge energy. And the Devil laughs.
He knows that an accelerator is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity an infinite variety of particles is contained .
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
==============
E. Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I will dig out a hole of 1 meter width
and 1,20 m depth. It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I will begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin to drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
===================================
Imagine a man who breaks watches on a wall.
And then he tries to understand their mechanisms by
collecting the cogwheels, springs and small screws,
that have been scattered everywhere.
What are his chances of a successful reconstruction?
As many chances as there are scientists who aspire to understand the
inner structure of electrons by smashing them in accelerators, perhaps?
If, by not taking into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may well be unlimited.
==============
Great physicists didn’t ashamed admit that they
couldn’t understand the base of physics.
The ’small’ physicists understand the physics on 100%.
The ’small’ physicists teach physics as dogmatically
as the priests teach theology.
There are a few men who understand that we already
live in Orwell’s ‘1984′ world.
============================
Do mathematicians understand Physics?
====
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact has been forgotten in science.
========.
After the war, in Russia, there were many thieving
gangs and I , as a boy, rotated among one of them.
They had their own language, thieves’ jargon.
No one could understand them.
Now I read some mathematical articles and they remind me
of that forgotten thieves’ slang.
Are you laughing? Is this ridiculous?
For me it isn’t ridiculous because mathematicians stole
the picture of reality from us. Because they make us poor and stupid.
Why do I say so?
I will try to prove it and explain my point of view.
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski’s interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space”
- said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
“Well”, said another mathematicians, - “maybe 6D, 7D,
8D, 9D spaces will explain it”. And they had done it.
But the doubts still remain.
“OK”,they say, “we have only one way to solve this problem.
We must create more complex D spaces”.
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But……….
But there is one problem.
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
“Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…”
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
“with one more parameter the elephant will fly.”
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
Please remember, many D spaces were born as a wish
to understand SRT (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
But if someone wants to understand, for example, a bird
(photon/electron)itself and for this he studies only
its surroundings, will he be successful?
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
“To the winner over common sense”.
Why?
Because they have won us over using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
P.S.
I asked some mathematician:
Are there many different D spaces in the math/physicist’s works.
Are there limits to these D spaces?
Maybe is 123 D spaces the last and final space?
He answered:
“I think there are as many opinions on this as there are people
giving thought to the issue.” My own opinion is that since the more
immediately obvious 123 D option
(either parabolic, flat or hyperbolic) did not allow,
despite all efforts, reconciling the various theories,
then there is a need to try something else.
Maybe the time has come to try something else.
And what is mathematical opinion about the photon itself?
Here is one example how mathematician tries to solve the problem.
Russian scientist professor V.P. Seleznev created a “toro model”
of light quanta. According to this model, the light quanta is a constant
volume ring (like bublik). The speed of it is different and this fact gives
a possibility to understand all the natural phenomena of light,
to overcome all contradictions in physics and to offer a new
technology. So it is written in the book .
The secrets of Universe, 1998, V.D. Demin. Page 377
Glory to this scientist!
Glory to this professor!
But I have only one question - Can this toro volume ring model
(like a bublik) have volume in the vacuum?
The answer is NO.
According to J. Charles law ( 1787), when the temperature falls down
to 1 degree, the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degrees, the volume disappears
and particles become flat figures. Charles law was confirmed by
other physicists: Gay-Lussac, Planck, Nernst, Einstein.
So, according to Charles law the “toro volume ring model ”
is only a mathematic illusion.
There are many different models of photon.
To choose the correct one, we needs to ask a question.
Which geometrical form can a photon have in a vacuum?
Some scientists say:
“The darkest subject in the science is light quanta.”
Maybe now some my readers will better understand the way
which we must go. Now mathematics goes ahead of science
and physics follows it. Mathematicians carry the posters
“Forward to abstraction”, “Forward to the absurd”
and we all follow them. We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.
================
http://www.socratus.com
I always thought evolution was pretty black and white, myself. It seems like it would be very very hard to deny that if a species slowly developed some trait that allowed it a slightly higher chance of surviving long enough to procreate then through many many years this advantage would magnify so that the only members of that species left were the ones with that “new” trait. I think the people who deny evolution because it “goes against God” or for some reason like that, need to follow their own advice. I hear religious people always talking about how nonbelievers take the Bible too literally, everything in it is a metaphor, and so on. Well does it not stand to reason that when the Bible says God made the universe in 7 days, that it DOESN’T mean 7 modern human days? When it says God “created” man, as he is today, I think this needs to be taken with a grain of salt too. Through the years the Bible has been so heavily translated and retranslated that the Bible itself has evolved (gasp!) into something other than what it began as. The Bible can no longer be taken at face value if you expect to get the information it was intended to depict.
I think some things have been overlooked.
Most people dislike somebody giving them orders. So when someone decrees that you must believe in evolution or else you are an illiterate superstitious imbecile just like your parents … understand there will be hostility. Slapping people in the face is not an effective method of persuasion.
Also, why is evolution even an issue in the presidential race? Other than to portray anyone who doesn’t believe in it as an illiterate superstitious imbecile? The politicians who “say” they believe in evolution probably do not always have truth & purity of science in mind. Don’t condemn a poltician on his sound-byte position on one issue, condemn them for their ulterior motives.
Vince, who used the words “illiterate superstitious imbecile?” No one of the Earth & Sky site, I hope.
Science is a useful way of looking at the world.
All views respected. All voices welcome.
Deborah
Dear Deborah,
Thanks for your many remarkable contributions to the really challenging work of these days. Keep going.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/16/3219/
Steve
Dear Deborah,
Please consider the work of Naomi Klein, at the following link.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/16/3219/
Her work appears to extend a great tradition begun by Rachel Carson and continued by other great females like you, Jane Goodall, Gretchen Daily, Hazel Henderson, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Donna Hines, Jean Gilbertson, Maura Beecher, Catherine Budgett-Meakins, Amy Coen, Ellen Carnevale, Reah Janise Kauffman, Kristen Barney, Sarah Fairchild, Lisa Colson, Evelyn Wasdell, Molly Sheehan, Carol Brewer, Vivien Ponniah, Kristin Hetle, Ann Ehrlich and Hania Zlotnik.
Sincerely yours,
Steve
Why do some people have faith in science?
In an age fast approaching post modernity why do some people still cling to modernity? 150 years of fascinating data and discovery, but even empiricism had limits (fruit flies and viruses). Why do some people still believe science holds all knowledge?
Some people even believe science is coolly dispassionate when it comes to evolution. It is a shame this is not true. Empirical data shows us micro evolution, but not the TCA, and not macro evolution. It’s time to rethink just what “levers and gears” are and what limits they restrict on knowledge. And though science is incomplete, there is no less good argument to identify those limits before science leads people to despair.
2007 World Population Data:
http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07WPDS_Eng.pdf
Each culture presents its membership with much that is real and also much less that is illusory. From the standpoint of a psychologist, because humans are shaped early and pervasively by cultural transmissions in our perception of reality, it looks like an evolutionary challenge for humankind to see the world as it is. (If this note were sent only to fellow psychologists, rather than use the term cultural transmissions, I would deploy a term from the work of Dr. Carl G. Jung, collective unconscious.)
According to Russell P. Hopfenberg and David I. Pimentel, culture may at times mesmerize human beings in that it gives rise to illusions of the world as it is. This research, like some evidence before it, seems to disturb, because they come into conflict with, certain culturally derived notions held by members of a culture about what it means to be human and about the “place” of Homo sapiens in the natural order of living things. Scientific facts of this particular kind are uniformly difficult for people to see, I suppose, because such data have a way of undercutting the pedestal from which we look upon our fellow creatures, nature itself and the universe. We humans may introject culturally biased and scientifically unsupported transmissions (i.e., memes) that confuse human reasoning and promote a certain cortical conceitedness which is not helpful when trying to see what is real or to recognize certain requirements of reality. For a very long time cultural transmissions or memes appear occasionally and accidentally to pass from generation to generation, distorting human perceptions and making it difficult for us to see a scientific fact for what it is real about it.
When a psychological practitioner like myself thinks a patient is suffering from a mental illness, that determination is a matter of evidence-based clinical judgment. However, general standards of what is normal are not clinical judgments (and sometimes do not objectively correlate with reality), but are oten unverified matters of cultural norms and social conventions that are full of scientifically validated perceptions of reality alongside some misperceptions of what is real. Because some misperceptions are valued by those who share them, these memes get passed along AS IF THEY REPRESENTED REALITY.
In the cases of deeply disturbed mental patients, they are inclined to distort reality so drastically that their distortions are not widely held shared and held by other people. Instead, these mistaken impressions are labeled as examples of ‘craziness’. By contrast, governments, social organizations and cultures appear not to misperceive reality so sharply, yet distortions of what people in a culture perceive do remain.
A term of art in psychology is useful here, folie a deux. The term means that two people share an identical distortion of reality. This understanding leads to other terms, folie a deux million for a social order or folie a deux billion for a culture. These terms refer to misperceived aspects of reality commonly shared and held by many people of a government, a society, a culture. One way to define the highest standard of what is normal for the individual and for people in a particular socio-cultural aggregate is in terms of being able to see what is free of illusion, what is in scientific fact real. Hence, in taking note of the process of humankind becoming evermore aware of reality by means of the acquisition of valid scientific data through time, Homo sapiens can track the evolution of science.
From this perspective, nature is a perfected, self-regulating and self-sustaining system that has worked for millions of years, without human presence or input, and will likely continue for millions of years with or without human activities. Ancestors of Homo sapiens survived successfully on Earth for the past few hundred thousand years, and then some more. In all that time humankind presumably did not endanger itself, nor did we oddly expunge other creatures, massively degrade the Earth or recklessly dissipate its limited resources upon which our lives, other forms of life and even the global economy depend for their very existence.
In this context it is worth noting that something happened several thousand years ago. At some point not long after the end of the Ice Age Homo sapiens appear to have turned to growing and storing food and treating it as a commodity. As humans produced more food than the population needed for its immediate survival, our population numbers began going up, up, up and not up and down as do the population numbers of other species on Earth. Instead of continuing to exist as hunter-gatherers and collect food necessary for survival, Homo sapiens produced, stored and sold more and more food. The (agri)culture-al economy that developed over the last 8,000 to 11,000 years is forthrightly man-made, ever expanding, seemingly limitless and, just now, soon to become patently unsustainable at its current huge scale and its fully anticipated growth rate, and, therefore, in its present form. As this artificially designed economy has grown, human population numbers appear to have stopped fluctuating in a natural cycle as they likely had through unrecorded time. During the past few thousand years human numbers began to increase in an unhealthful, nearly exponential manner. For the past several hundred years global human population numbers have skyrocketed.
The “demographic transition” is descriptive not deterministic. The widely shared and consensually validated current evidence related to the automatic occurrence of a so-called demographic transition at 9.2 billion people around 2050 appears to be preternatural, culturally skewed and, therefore, scientifically unsound.
Looking at regions where population is increasing at a decreasing rate or at a country like Italy and with its decreasing population numbers may be distracting us — and need not necessarily blind us — from the apparently unforeseen knowledge of our continuously increasing absolute global human numbers and their potentially profound implications. We wish to look at trees, but need to see the forest.
According to the unchallenged and virtually irrefutable research from Hopfenberg and Pimentel, human population numbers are continuing to increase worldwide as a result of the production of food in greater and greater quantities. These food resources are then made ever more available by sale and delivery into areas on the planet with low human carrying capacity, where human life in large numbers and other life cannot simultaneously be sustained.
Could it be that we are not making hunger go away by means of maximally expanding the food supply, but instead giving rise to billions of hungry people, extirpating biodiversity and undermining the integrity of global ecosystems?
Please note that 3.7 billion people exist these days in our planetary home on resources valued at less than $2 per day. That number of people is greater than the total number of people on Earth in the year 1950!
Certainly human beings have sophisticated, forward-planning cultures and a progressive world economy. And for all the wonders of our pyramid-like global economic scheme, still there is apparently not be a scientific basis for concluding human beings have broken the bonds of our placement among the creatures of the world. Nor have the conditions of the natural world likely been suspended somehow for human benefit. No, the
Hopfenberg/Pimentel evidence indicate that certain biological and physical laws of nature likely apply to all creatures of Earth, including human ones.
Please consider the 21 SOLUTIONS? to Save the World that follows in the link below,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3783
Please note that nowhere is there mentioned the potential for an ECOLOGICAL catastrophe that could soon result from the rapidly mounting pressures produced by unbridled human production, increasing per capita consumption and near exponential human population growth.
Nowhere is there mentioned the potential for a colossal wreckage of the global ECONOMY in the offing, that could result from the irreversible degradation of the environment and the reckless dissipation of finite resources produced by the adamant and relentless growth of certain distinctly human activities now overspreading the surface of Earth.
At least to me, we can see something indicative of unbelievable blindness and elective mutism. Such spectacular omissions are unprecedented in my experience.
What are our leaders thinking and doing?
What am I missing?
Always,
Steve
Dear Deborah,
You would probably agree how important it is to maintain sense of good humor, even in the midst of serious scientific discussion like this one. So, enjoy……
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5237038.stm
With every good wish to you and hope for the work you are doing,
Steve
Dear Deborah,
Something of possible import has come to my attention that I do not understand. It has to do with UNECONOMIC economic growth. Perhaps you or someone else in the E&S community can help by commenting here.
The following comes from a blogger named Art who has contributed to a discussion at the Orion Magazine website. The thread for the entire discussion, Alter Call for True Believers, is at the following link.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/discuss/342/
The missive to which I refer is next.
80 Art on Aug 30, 2007
From what I have rsad here, I am seeing more agreement in general, but like looking through a prism at varying angles, interpretations are diverse.
Speaking of growth, whether of people, poverty, wealth, or I.Q., I think we are evolving our economic paradigms. Within the standard neo-classical paradigm “uneconomic growth” is an anomalous category. You will not find it mentioned in any of the classics on macroeconomics. But within the paradigm of ecological economics it is an obvious possibility.
The pre-analytic vision of standard neo-classical economics is that the economy is the total system, and that nature, to the extent that it is considered at all, is a sector of the economy - e.g. the extractive sector (mines, wells, forests, fisheries, agriculture). Nature is not seen, as in the ecological economics vision, as an envelope containing, provisioning, and sustaining the entire economy, but as one sector of the economy similar to other sectors. If the products or services of the extractive sector should become scarce, the economy will presumably “grow around” that particular scarcity by substituting the products of other sectors. If the substitution is difficult, new technologies will be invented to make it easy.
The unimportance of nature, in this view, finds empirical support in the declining share of the extractive sector in total GNP. Beyond the initial provision of indestructible building blocks, nature is simply not important to the economy in the view of neo-classical economics. Ecological economics considers the percentage of GNP represented by resources to be a misleading indication of their importance. One might as well claim that a building’s foundation is unimportant because it represents only five percent of the height of the skyscraper erected above it. GNP is the sum of value added. Resources are that to which value is added - the foundation or base upon which the skyscraper of value added is resting. A foundation’s importance does not diminish with the growth of the structure that it supports! If GNP growth resulted only from increments in value added to a non-growing resource throughput, then it would remain economic growth. But that is not what happens.
What happens, according to ecological economics, is that the economy grows mainly by transforming its environment (natural capital) into itself (manmade capital). This process of transformation takes place within a total environment that is considered perishable, not entirely non-growing, or materially closed, but contains limits that can be exceeded. A throughput of solar energy powers biogeochemical cycles, but that energy throughput is perishable and potentially finite. As the economic subsystem grows it becomes larger relative to the total system, and therefore must conform itself more to the limits of the total system - finitude, non-growth, and entropy. Subsystem growth is ultimately limited by the size of the total system, even under neo-classical assumptions of easy substitution of manmade for natural capital. But if manmade and natural capital are complements rather than substitutes, as ecological economics claims, then expansion of the economic subsystem would be much more stringently limited by that complementarity. There would be no point in transforming natural capital into manmade capital beyond the capacity of remaining natural capital to complement and sustain it. What good are more fishing boats when the fish population has disappeared? The fish catch used to be limited by number of fishing boats (manmade capital) but is now limited by the remaining populations of fish in the sea (natural capital).
When factors are complements the one in short supply is limiting. If factors are substitutes then there cannot be a limiting factor. Economic logic says that we should economize on and invest in the limiting factor. Economic logic stays the same, but as we have moved from an “empty” world to a “full” world, the role of limiting factor has gradually shifted from manmade to natural capital, - e.g. from fishing boats to remaining fish in the sea; from saw mills to remaining forests; from irrigation systems to aquifers or rivers; from oil well drilling rigs to pools of petroleum in the ground; from engines that burn fossil fuel to the atmosphere’s capacity to absorb CO2, etc.
The optimal scale of the economy is smaller, when greater is: (a) the gap of complementarity between natural and manmade capital; (b) reduced desire for direct experience of nature; and (c) faulty estimates of both the intrinsic and instrumental value of other species. The smaller the optimal scale of the economy, the sooner its physical growth becomes uneconomic.
The neo-classical paradigm permits growth forever, but does not mandate it. Historically the growth mandate came from the answer given to the problems raised by Malthus, Marx, and Keynes. Growth was the common answer to all three problems. Overpopulation, unjust distribution, and involuntary unemployment would all be solved by growth. Overpopulation would be cured by the demographic transition initiated by growth(Malthus). Unjust distribution of wealth between classes would be rendered tolerable by growth, the rising tide that lifts all boats(Marx). Unemployment would yield to increasing aggregate demand which merely required that investment be stimulated, which of course implies growth (Keynes). Continuing this time-honored tradition the World Bank’s World Development Report continues to assert that more growth was also the solution to the environmental problem. But of course the assumption in all cases was that growth was economic, that it was making us richer rather than poorer. But now many are beginning to see how growth is becoming uneconomic. Uneconomic growth will not sustain the demographic transition and cure overpopulation. Neither will it help redress unjust distribution, nor cure unemployment. Nor will it provide extra wealth to be devoted to environmental repair and cleanup.
We now need more direct solutions to the problems of Malthus, Marx, and Keynes: population control to deal with overpopulation; redistribution to deal with excessive inequality; and ecological tax reform to raise and protect resource productivity and employment. It is utopian (or dystopian) to think of this being carried out by some world-sized authority. Some nations have made progress in controlling their population growth, in limiting domestic income inequality, in reducing unemployment. They have also improved resource productivity by internalizing environmental and social costs into prices. But significant gains will eventually be undercut by the ideology of globalization. Global economic integration by free trade and free capital mobility effectively erases the policy significance of national boundaries, turning the federated community of nations into a cosmopolitan non community of globalized individuals. Some of these “individuals” are giant transnational corporations, treated as individuals through the purchase of legal fictions.
Under globalization, each country seeks to expand beyond the limits of its own ecosystem and market by growing into the ecological and economic space of all other countries, as well as into the remaining global commons. Globalization operates by standards-lowering competition, to bid down wages, to externalize environmental costs, and reduce social overhead expenses for public goods. But it is far worse than an unrealistic global dream - it actively undercuts the ability of nations to continue dealing with their own localized symptoms of unjust distribution, unemployment, external costs, and overpopulation. It is hard to imagine any country continuing to limit its birth rate or internalize its environmental and social costs when the results of overpopulation and cost externalization in other countries freely spill over into it.
Globalization is the sexy elixir concocted by the growth-forever alchemists. Export-led growth is the new philosopher’s stone that turns lead into gold by the alchemy of free trade. With the revival of alchemy comes a return to the logic of Mercantilism: wealth is gold, and the way for countries without mines to get gold is to export more goods than they import, and receive payment for the difference in gold. The way to export more than you import is to reduce wages. The way to keep wages low is to have an oversupply of labor, attained by easy immigration or high birth rates among the working class. Globalization requires, therefore, that for a nation to be rich, the majority of its citizens must be poor, increase in number, and live in a deteriorating environment.
Truly, John Ruskin foresaw the era of uneconomic growth, a time when:
“That which seems to be wealth may in verity be only the gilded index of far-reaching ruin…….”
With thanks,
Steve