infographic
June 28, 2012 • 5:44 am
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
The atheist scientist is in a difficult position because, aligning himself with materialism, he is obliged to say that mind and consciousness are an unintended, freakish byproduct of random collisions of lifeless atoms, and therefore devoid of law and order. Even stranger that this chaos should reign in a universe which seems a place of extraordinary precision, and in which we are so certain about inviolable laws that highly intelligent scientists willingly spend their whole lives searching for ever more fundamental ones.
But in appealing to others to believe what he believes, he now claims mind is infallible in its conclusions. Not only that, his intense search for the laws behind the universe can only take place within his own mind, which would be impossible in a random substance devoid of law.
So it is a little hard for people to take their claims seriously, esepcially when whatever is considered solid one minute is overturned the next by a new discovery, giving a feeling of unsteadiness even to the purely intellectual arena of the laboratory.
Junk DNA, anyone?
I can only assume that “esepcially” is a code word of some kind intended to indicate “everything I write is spurious nonsense.”
The Teleological argument, or Argument from Design, is a non sequitur. Complexity does not imply design and does not prove the existence of a god. Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer (Aliens?). Furthermore, many biological systems have obvious defects consistent with the predictions of evolution by means of natural selection.
The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules. All the complexity of the universe, all its apparent richness, even life itself, arises from simple, mindless rules repeated over and over again for billions of years. Current scientific theories are able to clearly explain how complexity and order arise in physical systems. Any lack of understanding does not immediately imply ‘god’.
Big Bang > Cosmic Inflation > Big Bang Nucleosynthesis > Stellar Formation > Galaxy Formation > Stellar Nucleosynthesis > Solar System Formation > Earth Formation > Abiogenesis > Evolution
Note: Crystallisation is one example of how matter can readily self-organise into complex, ordered shapes and structures eg. Bismuth.
The suggestion that science is unreliable because it changes is akin to believing new maps are unreliable because cartography is improving.
Science has demonstrably produced the most accurate and reliable models of the universe that mankind has ever known and it is upon those models that all modern technology, medicine and industry are based. Science only appears to be erratic because of sensationalist reporting in the popular media.
Science keeps changing because the tools used to perform science keep improving. When the universe of available evidence changes, scientific theories must be re-evaluated. There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a theory in science is the highest honour any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to a phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect and are usually refined on a time-scale measured in centuries.
The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity. It is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods, but not necessarily discarding old ones. For example, when Einstein developed the General and Special Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton’s Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, vanishingly small and extremely fast are removed from Einstein’s theories — phenomena Newton could not have observed — Newton’s equations are what remain. Einstein’s theories are simply expansions and refinements of Newton’s theories and thus increase our confidence in Newton’s work while providing a deeper understanding. The very same relationship applies to Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, and to Evolution and Genetics.
Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination.
Wow! Very good! This is the statement that should be glued to the front page of every HS science textbook. I’ve written similar but not so compact and well stated. I like your approach because you expect your reader to have a basic understanding of the process of science. Sadly most don’t and the fanatics will see your comments as an attack.
A few years ago I mounted a defense of stem cell research, embryonic or otherwise. The comments were uniformly negative if not hostile. Since then if I respond I remain neutral or remain silent. There is a “violent” minority that has no toleration for a view that differs from theirs. I prefer to remain out of their firing line.
It’s been my experience that science-based reasoning folks are the first ones to readily admit that all we know or “believe” could be overturned tomorrow by new discoveries but base what they NOW claim as true on what we NOW know. What else can anyone do? Science deals with probabilities after all, not certainty. I’m an atheist/agnostic based on the probabilities of the current status of what we “know”.
I think most scientists were suspicious of religious beliefs before they went to college. Then college provided the culture and evidence they needed to shed their inherited beliefs.
I also want to point out the mere statement “I believe in God” doesn’t need to amount to much. My brother says he believes in God; but, outside the mosque, God never comes to mind.