Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Expelled, Evo-Devo and Nazism

Alan Boyle has posted a review/commentary of the Intelligent Design movie Expelled on his ‘Cosmic Log’. Alan’s always posting great stuff over there, and this is another example of that – but I thought I’d give it a mention here as it served (passively) as a bit of a fulcrum to my reading this week.

Firstly, Alan talked to evolutionary biologist Sean B. Carroll about the movie, and coincidentally I had just finished reading Steve Talbott’s Antimatters article “Can the New Science of Evo–Devo Explain the Form of Organisms?”. The article references Carroll as an authority on new developments in evolutionary theory, in discussing the ‘design’ aspects of living creatures and whether orthodox science really does explain how ‘form’ imposes itself upon physical creations.

When evolutionary biologists hear someone express wonder over the mammalian eye or peacock’s feathers, and when this wonder shades into incredulity about the usual sort of explanation for such things, all too often the biologists’ immediate assumption is that they’re up against an antagonist who doesn’t believe the eye or feather can be understood scientifically and who therefore wants to invoke some extra-scientific, and perhaps miraculous, explana-tion. And in fact some of the critics of evolution want to do exactly this.

More promisingly, we can step out of that fractious dispute and view the battlefield from a new level, where it becomes possible to grant the legitimate concerns of both sides. The scientist is absolutely justified in demanding unexceptioned respect for lawful, normal physical and biological process. Any attempt to introduce violations of this process leads immediately to nonsense.

But at the same time the incredulity the critic feels when contemplating the wonders of biological form is fully and emphatically justified. We should look at the eye and feather with disbelief in the usual manner of explanation. This, however, is not because we need miracles or violations of physical law. No, what we are disconcerted about is the claim that form has been explained by a description of processes from which considerations of form have been excluded as far as possible. Our unease is with the incommensurability between the explanation and what it is supposed to explain. The incommensurability, as I’ve tried to show above, results from the attempt to explain form by reference to mechanisms assumed to be both independent of form and the causes of it — when in fact we can make sense of the so-called “mechanisms” only by reference to the form we are supposedly explaining.

Secondly, another of the key points in Alan’s article – disputing the portrayal in Expelled of a link between evolutionary thinking and Nazism/fascism – was also discussed in another article I read this week, “The Atheist Delusion” by John Gray (which I linked to yesterday). Gray took the ‘new Atheists’ to task for ignoring obvious historical instances of atheism being at the centre of evil deeds, and made some good points.

I found both these articles (and Alan’s as well) to be balanced, insightful and thought-provoking, but also critical at appropriate times. In short, intelligent articles well worth reading and discussing.

Editor
  1. The bickering continues . . .
    I’ve discussed my thoughts on this silly debate before (perhaps they’re both wrong!), but another thing that occurs to me is the commonality the two camps share; the idea that existence is a linear affair. The creationists see God creating the universe at a finite point, the atheists see The Singularity creating the universe at a finite point. And here we are.

    The other ground shared by both groups has to do with a fundamental assumption about reality. While the atheists deny the divine, the Western faiths imagine their god to be somewhere outside of creation. The time will come when it is rediscovered that the investigation of the physical universe is the investigation of the divine, and that it is consciousness that connects the two, or more accurately, what appears to be two. The truth of monism is perfectly concealed, deep within our own consciousness, but very few will choose to look in that direction. As Parmenides wrote 2500 years ago:

    But then I hold you back as well from the [other road of inquiry] that mortals fabricate, twinheads, knowing nothing. For helplessness in their chests is what steers their wandering minds as they are carried along in a daze, deaf and blind at the same time: indistinguishable, undistinguishing crowds who reckon that being and non-being are the same but not the same. And, for all of them, the route they follow is a path that keeps turning backwards on itself.

    ‘Free inquiry’ needs to be respected completely, but doing so requires rigorous inquiry into the very beliefs we mortals fabricate.

    1. No Big Bang
      Not everyone accepts the dogma of the Big Bang. Rather than having to grapple with the problem of the origin of the ‘singularity’ (or God), it is easier to say that the universe has always been and always will be.

      It is too facile to to equate the Big Bang with Genesis, because at least the Big Bang is a coherent theory based on natural processes, where Genesis is a magical conjuring by a supernatural being.

      I am very sure that when the riddle of consciousness is finally unwound, we will not find a willful personality behind it all.

      1. Discover magazine
        I think you guys might find this article highly enjoyable.
        —–
        It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
        It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

        Red Pill Junkie

      2. any which way
        Whether you assume that a singularity caused our universs to exist, of a god created it, or that it has always existed – non of these are an answer for why this universe is here.

        Why the singularity? Why is there a god? Why has it always been here?

        If we assume that it has always been here, and always will be, that is not an answer. That just says we don’t know why it is, and we don’t know why it works the way it does.

        Concluding “that’s just the way it is” is giving up.

        —-
        if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

        1. Why?
          This is a question stepping way out of your paradigm, Earthling, and I congratulate you. Science/engineering is preoccupied with ‘how’ – ‘why’ is usually a religious question. At least, it is nowadays.
          The reality, though, is ‘why’ is a philosophical question. It ‘completes’ knowledge. But it can never be answered by reductionism.
          ‘Why’ is a question that completes ‘our’ existence within existence. It is a motivating knowledge, which gives us purpose, direction. The actual ‘why’, in terms of hard facts, is most likely an impossibility. For like a good story, the ‘why’ comes at the conclusion – and we’re not there yet.

          Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

          Anthony North

          1. “my” paradigm?
            no sir, you seriouely misunderstand me.

            I normally just point out how the “how” is being done incorrectly done by many philosophies. When a lot of these political philosophies, like nazism, full socialism and such, lead to disaster, I point out that they are inconsistent with observable reality.

            These kinds of systems pretent to know “why”. And then they lead to terrible results. That is on the political level.

            On the scientific level, qnd on the engineering level – well we make your world work.

            And as I have said many times before, I don’t claim to know the “why”. And the holistic people may be looking for it, but they know nothing more than anyone else. They are just searching.

            The holistic approach knows nothing more than any other approach. Does it?

            We have to look for the “why”. But if someone claims to have found the “why”, and explain the “how”, and then says “you just have to feel it” – well, I need say that these people don’t know it either. The “why” or the
            “how”.

            I am actually looking for both. I am not just looking to write a philosophical treatise, that will make a good book.

            So I am different from the Greek philosophers – I am serious. I will get my hands dirty in engineering.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          2. Why?
            Earthling, I think you misunderestimate me 🙂
            Holism doesn’t cause trouble such as fascism, etc. It is the lack of moderation that causes the trouble. And as I said, I doubt if you’ll ever get to learn the ‘why’, other than in human terms.
            ‘Cos such meanings are what WE place on reality.

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          3. timing
            I admit that I will never really understand the “why”.

            Having said that, I will understand it at roughly the same time as you. And I expect it will not be because someone following the holy holist approach will tell me.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          4. that’s not the point
            Yes, we may never come to understand the “why”, but the purpose of the search is the search itself. It’s kind of like Alchemy, where the search for the phylosopher stone was secundary, while the transformation of the alchemist itself was the real ultimate goal.

            So, let’s keep on searching.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          5. directions
            That is sort of my point. We have to keep searching, and there is no single approach that seems mroe promising than another.

            Top down, bottom up, middle out, we should do all of this.

            If there is one complaint I have with the top down approach, it is that social science often views hard science and engineering as mere tools. When these mere tools have made the entire world that social science lives in now.

            On the other side, hard science and engineering often views social science as a bunch of amateurs who have not made any progress in the last 10,000 yera or so.

            Ironically, both views are probably correct 🙂

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          6. That’ why I chose the middle ground
            When the time came to choose a career, I chose Industrial Design as a way to reconcile and combine my love for science & engineering, and my creative impulses.

            Of course, if I had known the terrible salaries designers get, I would have had second thoughts 🙂

            I suppose that happens with all the people that try to combine two seemingly opposite views of life.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          7. Where’s the problem?
            The problem here is, we’re not looking where the problem is. Both science/engineering and social sciences ARE basically correct in their separate methodologies. The problem is the connection between them. Which is where holism SHOULD come in – looking to both and suggesting possibilities where their systems could combine.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          8. combining views
            I stated my points badly I think.

            The correct criticism that social science has of hard science/engineering is that these disciplines have not changed social behaviour significantly over the last 10,000 years.

            Life is more comfortable, due to the hard science/engineering, but the behavioral patterns look very similar to the very old days.

            So, social science sees the other side as just tools – nicer homes, better food. Convenient servants are these engineers, but nothing more, there is no reason to listen to them.

            On that other side, hard science and engineering sees that social science has not advances in 10,000 years. Social science has learned basically nothing, while hard science/engineering has changed the world.

            So why respect social science? They have just been blabbing the same ineffective things forever.

            That is the fundamental divide.

            A truly holistic approach would be honest, in recognizing the limitations of both sides. Engineering in particular should admit that human behaviour, human motivation, has not changed in a long long time. Social science in particular should admit that it is an utter failure, and needs to learn something new. What that is, I don’t know.

            That is why we should keep searching, and not pretend we have found something when we have not.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          9. Knock down the wall
            Good morning Earthling,
            I think both sides should knock down that damned big wall and smell the reality between.
            Technology and science HAS changed social behaviour. Speculatively, we must look at the effect of tech on the mind – in particular the increases in ‘outside’ information. Today, with computer tech, there is growing evidence of shorter attention spans, but an increased ability to work on several things in parallel. Does this imply that the information tech produces has always changed the nature of our mind, and thus our thought processes?
            Does this increasingly trap us in the material? Tech and psychology are, I’m sure, interactive.
            On a more simple point, take Newton’s Principia. For the first time it really showed that man’s laws can be applied to the universe. This imbued philosophers such as Locke to apply laws to human behaviour. The entire Enlightenment, and all the social changes involved, was a direct result of Newton’s science.

            Social science HAS changed human behaviour. It provides theories of how we behave. These catch on, become expressed as ‘symbols’, and before long they’ve created the behaviour we go on to express.
            Think altruism. 10,000 years ago, life didn’t mean much in terms of value. Today, it does. It has happened because social sciences showed our interdependence upon each other.
            Want to see a symbol in action, defining our views? Why do most people, when thinking of American gangsters, think of Chicago? After all, New York was the gangster centre, and many other cities were worse than Chicago.
            Answer? Because sociologists had a school there that studied them in Chicago. This led to the symbol, and hey presto, ‘you dirty rat’.
            There’s more between these two stances than fresh air.

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          10. realities
            Sure technology has affected how we behave. But I don’t think it has affected why we behave like this. We just live in a different environment, so we respond differently. The main differences are the improvements in communication and transportation.

            But I still think we behave the same way as in the old days, although with different opportinuties, and with different constraints.

            The part about altruism – I think the value of human life is as cheap today as it weas 10,000 years ago. In the western countries, we are conditioned and restricted by strong governments. When some of these restrictions go away (not if, but when), the altruism goes away. You can see this every day.

            I think sociologists are fooling themselves – they have language to describe how people behave, but no more understanding than spiritualists thousands of years ago.

            Let me go back 10,000 years, even though my memory of those days is hazy. Back then, we did not have much specialization.

            But we did have people who organized groups, told people what to do, nd why they should do it. Rulers, shamans, those kind of people. Some of them are now calling themselves social science.

            Also, we had the stick-and-stone people, who made things. And improved the sticks and stones. Obviously, the stick and stone people have made progress.

            As for the social science people, the governments, spiritual people, union leaders – their problem is a lot harder. The stick and stone people deal with the outside world. It is much easier to make experiments, and evaluate the outcome.

            The social science problems are introspective, and that is much more difficult. When you want to make an experiment in these areas, you are yourself part of the subject. That is why I think that the stick and stone methods don’t easily translate.

            We must realize this, when we want a holistic approach. We should admit when certain methods don’t work in some areas. And we should admit when we do not have any results.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          11. Holism
            I don’t recognise this world you’re speaking of, here. Take what you said about altruism. You give the impression that without strong government, it would go away. If things break down, it goes away.
            Totally untrue. An ordered society attempts to restrict the activities of some of its members, who, if things break down, go mad. Don’t tar the whole of society by the non-values of this rabble.
            In the extreme forms of survival, most people are still altruistic – true, their focus may shift – become more immediate, taking care of family above others, etc – but to say altruism goes is totally and absolutely wrong.
            As for holistic, most ideas of ‘holistic’ are not holistic at all. They are the opposite of specialisation. As holism is supposed to encompass everything, how can they be holistic if they ignore specialisation?
            My view of holism is to provide a counrter-balance to specialisation that looks at the things specialisation misses, knitting it all together. Other than that, I don’t know how to answer you, as you seem to have ignored all the points I previously made.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          12. if
            If strong government, with ever present control, goes away, then the disrespect for human life comes back, real quick.

            What makes us think today that most people thousands of years ago were not altruistic? What makes us think today, that those people in control of our society are more altruistic than they were thousands of years ago?

            Without strong government, the death penalty for trivial offences comes back very quickly. It is even present in private situations now, in what we think of as enlightened societies. I bet the death penalty for trivial insults is present in your town, in England.

            What world do you live in?

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          13. I don’t think so
            Sorry to intrude, but it is my opinion that altruism is not something that is present just because governments enforce it; I believe it is something very primordial in the human species, and may be what made os so succesful in the long run.

            Let me talk about an example I witnessed first-hand: the earthquake that stroke on Mexico city in 1985. Now, this wasn’t a itty-bitty quake, this was a REAL MOTHER, the likes of which I hope none of you will witness. I wasn’t close to the areas more affected, but to this day quakes make me nervous.

            And the images of it still haunt us. Entire buildings turned to rubble, with people trapped inside between the debris and the dead bodies; in this chaos the government was completely numb and paralized, but it was the PEOPLE that got organized and began the rescue efforts. Most of them volunteers, and not necessarily with family members trapped; it was something very difficult to express, but EVERYONE felt compelled to do their part. When you heard on the radio that water and medicines were neede in some area, my dad would take me and my sisters with his car, and by the time we got there with the supplies, 5-10 other families had already arrived. There were also the stories of the doctors who died trying to save their patients when a hospital collapsed.

            In retrospect, the 1985 quake was as important as the massacre of 1968 in the shaping of Mexico’s democracy. That was the first time the mexican people realized that we don’t need the god damned government, we can take care of ourselves.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          14. altruism
            that is sort of my point. altruism is not new, respect for life is not new. it was not invented in the last few hundred years.

            it is just that the other side, violence against individuals for trivial reasons, is controlled to some extent by more effective governments these days.

            Also, Red, why do you think you are intruding? This is not a family fight, anybody can join 🙂

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

  2. *sigh*
    Science can be as prone to misaplication as Religion, when taken out of their intended spheres.

    —–
    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal