[...]
Loren:===========
>What do scientists do with non-mechanistic events? Individual scientists
>could reach (at least) five different conclusions:
>
>A) A supernatural event occurred.
>B) Super-human technology brought about the event.
>C) An unknown natural mechanism is responsible for the event.
>D) A very unlikely (natural) event occurred.
>E) A very unlikely (natural) event occurred, but there are many
> different causally disconnected universes.
>
>Science _qua_ science cannot distinguish between these possibilities.
>Historical, philosophical, and religious arguments are the decisive
>factors in each scientist's conclusion.
>
>Note, however, that science _qua_ science DOES play a vital role in
>debating whether an event is "non-empirical" or "non-mechanistic."
>Philosophical and religious arguments can also properly play some role in
>this debate. This is the realm where scientific data, scientific
>intuitions, and philosophical/religious expectations meet in the same
>arena. For example, strongly materialistic scientists will work hard to
>push all events into the "natural" and "non-empirical" categories. This
>effort might lead them to uncover new natural mechanisms sooner than
>scientists who don't share their materialistic philosophy. Alternatively,
>scientists with strong religious or philosophical reasons for believing
>that certain events are supernatural can marshal scientific arguments to
>show that those events are "non-mechanistic" rather than merely
>"non-empirical." This effort might lead them to uncover flaws in proposed
>naturalistic scenarios sooner than scientists who don't share their
>religious beliefs. (*2*)
>
Although I think your intentions are noble, I still have a lot of
difficulty with this paragraph. It seems to me that all scientists,
when working in their own area of expertise anyway, are about the
business of finding order in chaos, making sense of the apparently
nonsensical, i.e. trying to put things in category 1 or 2. Although
you don't quite say it, it would be very easy to misconstrue the
above as saying that theistic scientists generally play the role
of "bad cop" by always trying to undo naturalistic explanations.
One might also get the impression that non-theists (or materialists
or whatever) are clinging desperately to the naturalistic no matter
what the cost. I think good science, whether conducted by theists,
atheists, agnostics, or whatever, involves proposing specific
hypotheses for given observations and then diligently testing
them. The committed Naturalist may be strongly committed to the
notion that a naturalistic explanation exists for every phenomena,
however, this should not imply that these individuals are not
about the business of rigorously testing specific naturalistic
hypotheses, this role being left to the religious scientist convinced
that a supernatural explanation is appropriate.
A good example of this is something I mentioned previously, i.e.
papers by Stanley Miller giving experimental results which
strongly undermine his preferred scenario for the origin of
life.
To further illustrate this point, I will use some material posted
to talk.origins by the infamous Deaddog. For those who don't know,
Deaddog is a fairly well known abiogenesis resercher who has made
some important contributions to the RNA World literature. Real
name: Andrew Ellington, assistant professer (chemistry), Indiana
University.
Although many of us obviously will not agree with Deaddog, his
comments provide a valuable insight into the way abiogenesis
researchers are thinking.
Anyway, the title of the post was: "Origins of life: A redefinition"
First of all, the post was amazingly candid about the problems
faced by OOL researchers:
At some point abiogenesis will rule. But right now
we cannot point to a single mechanism that defines
the origin of life. In my opinion, this is what
distinguishes abiogenesis from evolution: there is not
only a great deal of evidence for evolution, but a
framework to interpret that evidence. There is a great
deal of evidence for abiogenesis as well, but the
framework in which that evidence can / should be
interpreted is still in its formative stages. This
makes it easy for Creationists to throw stones at
abiogeneticists and prebiotic chemists. ...
-- Deaddog, t.o
Another interesting item, with relevance to a previous discussion
here about the probability of forming a simple self-replicator
and particularly to Glenn's use of Gerald Joyce's work is:
There was never a warm pond with 10^18 sequences
of length 220 in it. We can keep saying there was
to keep the wolves at bay (and because in all honesty
we really don't know), but it probably didn't happen
that way.
-- Deaddog, t.o
This candid statement gains even more significance when we
realize that Ellington has actually published in precisely
this area:
J.W. Szostak and A.D. Ellington, "In Vitro Selection
of Functional RNA Sequences," <The RNA World>, Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993, pp. 511-533.
Here we do not see someone desperately clinging to the warm
pond because that's the only naturalistic scenario available.
Deaddog continues from the above with:
Which leads us to the more interesting question of trying
to figure out how it did happen. And the happy thing
about this question is that everyone can contribute, from
the lowliest snot-ragged undergraduate, to that acme of
academic life, the assistant professor.
-- Deaddog, t.o
It is significant that Deaddog willingly leaves himself open to
attack from the Steve Jones's of this world:
"C'mon Deaddog, scientists have been working on this
for 83 years now. You admit that you can't find a
mechanism and you admit that there wasn't a warm pond,
when are you going to give it up"
But this type of talk just motivates someone like Deaddog to
search even harder. To the Steve Jones's, Deaddog writes:
No, let the nay-sayers stick their tongues out at
us and go "nyah, nyah." Stanley Miller and Jim
Ferris and Alan Schwartz and Leslie Orgel and
Gerry Joyce and others, even Deaddogs, will go on
their merry ways, cooking up new and interesting
ways to produce life. When they do, great, then
we can grasp said tongues, rip them from the gaping
maws of the fools who thought bogus statistical
treatments had jackshit to do with chemistry, and nail
them to their foreheads as a warning sign for all
future members of the Know-Nothing party. Let the
Creationists dig their own graves, here and now.
If you have to argue with them at all, make them
make predictions about what is impossible -- not in
generalities, but in specifics. And then sit back
and wait for those predictions to fall like flies.
-- Deaddog, t.o
Previously, I asked Steve for a summary of what has been
accomplished in OOL research. Here is Deaddog's brief
summary:
Consider: over the past 30 years or so abiogenesis
has gone from being an examination of how proteins
could have spontaneously formed in aqueous solution
to an examination of how a hypercycle might have arisen
to an examination of how ribozymes could have evolved
to an examination of how pre-ribozymes could have evolved
to an examination of how complex chemical mixtures could
have given rise to stable chemical cycles (yes, gang, in
my opinion most of the arguments that are going on in
the RNA world threads were outdated two incarnations ago).
-- Deaddog, t.o
This raises an interesting question. Does the above succession
represent a string of failures or a string of successes? Or,
more specifically, does the conclusion that proteins could not
have formed spontaneously in aqueous solution represent a
success or a failure for scientific investigation into the
OOL? Steve would like to argue from the false alternative
here and say that the failure of this specific hypothesis
is evidence for supernatural intervention. That this is a
logical fallacy is hopefully obvious from the above. I would
argue instead that this represents a success. One idea has
been eliminated so we move on to the next idea. Note also
that the above succession is not random or haphazard. One
idea is tried, it fails in one sense but yet succeeds in
another in providing clues for the next idea.
Although Deaddog's specialty is the RNA world, it is clear
from his post that he doesn't believe this represents the
final solution to the puzzle. He ends the post with the
following:
So quit defending the RNA world, you howlers. If it
can't defend itself it should be left to die on the
vine, a useful idea that paved the way to other
useful ideas.
-- Deaddog, t.o
I think this is a wonderful expression of the way science
should, but doesn't always, work "...a useful idea that
paved the way to other useful ideas". But this is also
a great frustration for those who want to eliminate
naturalistic alternatives for the sole purpose of trying
to re-inforce a supernaturalistic interpretation of the
OOL. They will keep hoping that each failure will cause
their opponents to "deal with the obvious". Instead they
are taken as useful ideas that paved the way to other
useful ideas. This is the correct scientific approach
as far as I'm concerned and those who can't deal with it
should take Kepler's advice:
If someone is so dumb that he cannot grasp the
science of astronomy, or so weak that he cannot
believe Copernicus without offending his piety,
I advise him to mind his own business, to quit
this worldly pursuit, to stay at home and cultivate
his own garden, and when he turns his eyes toward
the visible heavens (the only way he sees them),
let him with his whole heart pour forth praise and
gratitude to God the Creator. Let him assure himself
that he is serving God no less than the astronomer to
whom God has granted the privelege of seeing more
clearly with the eyes of the mind.
-- Johannes Kepler, as quoted by Owen Gingerich
in "Dare a Scientist Believe in Design,"
in _Evidence of Purpose_, J.M. Templeton,
ed., Continuum, New York, 1994, p.28.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================