Hi all,
I have decided to create a personal blog site so please take a look if you would like to read anymore of my thoughts and posts. You can find it here:
http://freethinkingjourneys.blogspot.com/
I was a bit worried I was taking up this blog, created by Carlos, for my own personal musings. I may still post back here if I have some content which would be relevant.
Thanks for reading,
Dominic
Saturday 14 November 2009
Wednesday 21 October 2009
Scientific understanding
There has been news this week in Britain about whether political parties with extreme views should be given a platform in the popular media. This is a very difficult issue and this is not the place to explore it fully. It can be argued that as a democratic nation, and supporters of free speech, suppression may go against these values; but many people feel justifiably concerned. Whatever happens, I hope that people will see through parties who champion a supposedly better future for Britain to the sinister values underneath. However, this has inspired me to think how scientific education can really benefit mankind; to undermine some views which I feel are misplaced and dangerous. Evolutionary theory, geological history and cosmology has helped us piece together the wonderful past of our solar system, the Earth itself and that of a peculiar species of beings who now dominate the surface. I really believe that a thorough scientific understanding of the world, and our place in it, will benefit the future of our children. To that end I wrote the small piece that follows.
Every animal on this planet shares a common ancestor; every human shares the same ancestor - we are all related to each other. The Earth itself is over 4.5 billion years (think about it - 4.5 BILLION years) it has a history and the continents as we now see them are not as they have always been. The maps we see of our planet are just snapshots taken from a dynamic and ever-changing landscape. The Earth doesn't belong to us - it is shared by all organisms who live upon it; we should all act as stewards of our wonderful planet. Countries do not belong to anybody in that sense; they have been shaped by geological processes and changing seas and some time in the future each country boundary will change.
Every human being belongs to only one species amongst millions which live on the only habitable planet in our solar system. Armed with all this knowledge the national boundaries, identifiable races and cultural differences should all fade in to the background. This is the only true view of our world and if we acknowledge it then it can render extremism, racism and violent uprisings a thing of the past. There should be no conflict - we are all derived from the same ancestor and we all share the same beautiful planet. Let's make sure we preserve some element of this remarkable existence for our descendants, and stop making huge issues of matters which are insignificant when viewed against the grand view of life over its impressive history.
As always, thanks for reading. Dominic
Every animal on this planet shares a common ancestor; every human shares the same ancestor - we are all related to each other. The Earth itself is over 4.5 billion years (think about it - 4.5 BILLION years) it has a history and the continents as we now see them are not as they have always been. The maps we see of our planet are just snapshots taken from a dynamic and ever-changing landscape. The Earth doesn't belong to us - it is shared by all organisms who live upon it; we should all act as stewards of our wonderful planet. Countries do not belong to anybody in that sense; they have been shaped by geological processes and changing seas and some time in the future each country boundary will change.
Every human being belongs to only one species amongst millions which live on the only habitable planet in our solar system. Armed with all this knowledge the national boundaries, identifiable races and cultural differences should all fade in to the background. This is the only true view of our world and if we acknowledge it then it can render extremism, racism and violent uprisings a thing of the past. There should be no conflict - we are all derived from the same ancestor and we all share the same beautiful planet. Let's make sure we preserve some element of this remarkable existence for our descendants, and stop making huge issues of matters which are insignificant when viewed against the grand view of life over its impressive history.
As always, thanks for reading. Dominic
Wednesday 16 September 2009
Alan Turing apology issued
I was a bit slow off the mark but subsequent to my post about the petition to the UK government for a posthumous pardon to Alan Turing; Gordon Brown issued the following statement on Thursday 10th September.
I was very pleased to see that he had taken note of the petition and the thousands of people who were in support.
The article published on the number 10 website can be found at the following link:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571
I include the text from Gordon Brown's message below:
Thanks for reading,
Dominic
Prime Minister: 2009 has been a year of deep reflection – a chance for Britain, as a nation, to commemorate the profound debts we owe to those who came before. A unique combination of anniversaries and events have stirred in us that sense of pride and gratitude which characterise the British experience. Earlier this year I stood with Presidents Sarkozy and Obama to honour the service and the sacrifice of the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy 65 years ago. And just last week, we marked the 70 years which have passed since the British government declared its willingness to take up arms against Fascism and declared the outbreak of World War Two. So I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain’s fight against the darkness ofdictatorship; that of code-breaker Alan Turing.
Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War Two could well have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. In 1952, he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison - was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.
Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.
I am proud that those days are gone and that in the last 12 years this government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alan’s status as one of Britain’s mostf amous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.
But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind’s darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that inliving memory, people could become so consumed by hate – by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices– that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years. It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe’s history and not Europe’s present.
So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work I am very proud to say: we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.
Gordon Brown
If you would like to help preserve Alan Turing's memory for futuregenerations, please donate here: http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/
Petition information - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/
I was very pleased to see that he had taken note of the petition and the thousands of people who were in support.
The article published on the number 10 website can be found at the following link:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571
I include the text from Gordon Brown's message below:
Thanks for reading,
Dominic
Prime Minister: 2009 has been a year of deep reflection – a chance for Britain, as a nation, to commemorate the profound debts we owe to those who came before. A unique combination of anniversaries and events have stirred in us that sense of pride and gratitude which characterise the British experience. Earlier this year I stood with Presidents Sarkozy and Obama to honour the service and the sacrifice of the heroes who stormed the beaches of Normandy 65 years ago. And just last week, we marked the 70 years which have passed since the British government declared its willingness to take up arms against Fascism and declared the outbreak of World War Two. So I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain’s fight against the darkness ofdictatorship; that of code-breaker Alan Turing.
Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War Two could well have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. In 1952, he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison - was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.
Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.
I am proud that those days are gone and that in the last 12 years this government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alan’s status as one of Britain’s mostf amous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.
But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind’s darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that inliving memory, people could become so consumed by hate – by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices– that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years. It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe’s history and not Europe’s present.
So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work I am very proud to say: we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.
Gordon Brown
If you would like to help preserve Alan Turing's memory for futuregenerations, please donate here: http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/
Petition information - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/
Friday 4 September 2009
Alan Turing petition
For anyone who may read this blog. I just wanted to make you aware of a petition to support the posthumous apology from the government to Alan Turing.
For those who do not know who Alan Turing is, you may like to read the article here from the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8226509.stm
To sum up briefly, Alan Turing was a brilliant scientist whose work at Bletchley Park was critical to Britain during world war two - specifically in connection with decryption and code-breaking. Turing was a homosexual and after admitting to a relationship with another man was prosecuted and then subjected to chemical castration treatment. His death, just over two years later, was originally claimed to be under "suspicious circumstances" but the cause of death is now agreed to have been suicide.
If you would like to sign the petition it is here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/
Thanks for reading. All the best,
Dominic
For those who do not know who Alan Turing is, you may like to read the article here from the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8226509.stm
To sum up briefly, Alan Turing was a brilliant scientist whose work at Bletchley Park was critical to Britain during world war two - specifically in connection with decryption and code-breaking. Turing was a homosexual and after admitting to a relationship with another man was prosecuted and then subjected to chemical castration treatment. His death, just over two years later, was originally claimed to be under "suspicious circumstances" but the cause of death is now agreed to have been suicide.
If you would like to sign the petition it is here:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/
Thanks for reading. All the best,
Dominic
Wednesday 26 August 2009
Some clarity on evolutionary theory
It’s been quite a while since my last post on here. I have to plead lack of time due to working full time and studying with the OU part-time. I have had it on my mind for a while to extend a theme which I touched on in my last post; namely my concern about certain groups wilfully distorting the facts about evolution. I really feel that evolution is one of the most fascinating and exciting topics in science. It’s absolutely central to biology and also to how we view life on Earth - and the place therein of the human race. I have become frustrated that there is so much false information perpetuated about evolution and how there is so much certainty in some groups that the whole theory is ridiculous.
My apologies for those who are well aware of these issues already, I realise that there is a lot of literature and information which responds to creationist claims. However I feel that I need to continue that work; if I can highlight this worrying situation to just one more person then this will have been a success.
I am going to use a particular creationist website as my starting point so that I can highlight a few tactics and trends. I think I may extend this post over a few entries to try and cover as much as I can. In truth I could write hundreds of pages which refute most of the claims on this particular website – and I am not even an expert on the subject by any means. This indicates the level of bad science that is being put forward.
First things first though, evolution, well it’s only a theory isn’t it? It’s just a guess, a hunch, an idea that someone dreamed up one day - but no more than that. This is the view eagerly put forward by many creationist organisations. In science there is a technical way in which the word “theory” is used and it's very important to understand that; evolution is a theory but this does not undermine its scientific validity. In science a theory is not a hunch or a guess but a way of accurately explaining a great number of facts and allowing scientists to make predictions about what else would be true if the theory is valid. Any fact is an observation or hypothesis that has been validated so many times by evidence that we accept it as true; a theory takes many observed and verified facts and explains how and why those facts occur. A theory is a body of scientific knowledge with huge explanatory power that has been verified and substantiated so much that we accept it as true. It is vital to understand the importance of theories in science and that they do not relate in any way to the casual usage of the word.
Now, I will move on to the creationist literature which I have chosen to examine. I happened upon a link to this website recently when I was reading a film review:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/index.htm
This is the creation-evolution encyclopaedia which starts as it means to go on by making this bold claim:
“Over 3,000 scientific facts which annihilate evolutionary theory. This book is based on extensive research and is highly recommended by scientists and educators”
I would like to know which scientists and educators have endorsed this book. Where are the remarks from these distinguished professionals that substantiate this claim? This kind of sloppy work fails to adhere to academic standards and you will find more examples on every page. You cannot simply make such a bold statement and fail to back it up with any kind of evidence. However, this is one of the key tactics used by those seeking to confuse people about evolution. Quotes are used profusely and those quotes are used as evidence. Their argument goes something like this: someone said that this cannot be true – therefore it is not true. Maybe there is some kind of logical flow here, but the fact that someone said something does not make it correct. In most cases the quotes are taken out of context in order to suggest a meaning completely contradictory to that intended.
Returning to their opening statement; simply making a claim does not serve as proof either. If scientists and educators have recommended the book then please list their names. There may well be some “scientists” and “educators” who would put their name to this book but you would quickly find that they were all strongly affiliated with creationist organisations. What we are interested here is the support of people who are not swayed by personal beliefs that interfere with their subjectivity. My last sentence deserves much further qualification because we can all be influenced to some degree by our subjectivity; however this would change the purpose of this blog post entirely so I will not deal with this thought at the present time.
There is a particularly strange section on this site called "An evolutionist's paradise". Essentially this is a section in which evolutionary theory is attacked for suggesting mutations can lead to changes in organisms. The part of the section which shocked me most is titled “3-Hiroshima” the following link should direct you straight to it if you would like to have a look:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut11.htm#Hiroshima
To sum it up the author has tried to suggest that according to evolutionary theory a massive nuclear explosion will immediately produce new species through mutation. I have to say that this section truly saddened me. World war two as a whole was a dark period of history in which the worst side of mankind was brought to the fore. The authors of this site have attempted to use the numerous victims of the Hiroshima attack as an example to help “disprove” evolution. This shows quite clearly the lengths that some people will go to. I feel I can almost let this section speak for itself, but let’s just ask a few questions. Does the theory of evolution suggest that species have evolved by continually being exposed to lethal, or at least harmful, levels of radiation? Does the theory suggest that every time a new species evolved it was caused by nuclear radiation? Anyone with even a small understanding of evolutionary processes will know that this is a ridiculous thing to say.
The article states “lots of fine new species should have been produced here” - what a horrible way to make a flawed point. Why should the devastation of an atomic bomb produce lots of fine new species? Which scientist has ever said anything remotely like that? In which piece of evolutionary literature has such a claim been found? The answer of course is that no such thing has ever been proposed by anyone in conjunction with evolution. The atomic bomb was designed to destroy and kill, it was emphatically not designed by dedicated biologists trying to prove a hypothesis about how mutation can lead to speciation.
Natural selection does act on mutations of course, but we are considering small changes to the genetic code which that are then passed on to the offspring. Exposure to massive amounts of nuclear radiation can damage living cells irreparably – this is a completely different kind of mutation. Stating “Not one of them evolved into a different species or a new super-race” is absurd and quite insensitive to any survivors or their relatives. In order for a new species to evolve, small changes have to be inherited by the offspring; may I ask which small changes and which offspring are we considering from the horrific effects of a nuclear attack?
I have barely brushed the surface of the fascinating science that we could discuss - but the authors of this site do not want to enter into honest scientific debate; this argument has not been put forward thanks to dedicated and academically sound scientific investigation. The writer of this piece has tried to hammer home a very untruthful interpretation of genetic mutation with a shocking reference to Hiroshima. I have to say that the Christianity espoused here seems to be lacking some of the humility, compassion, and honesty that Jesus displayed.
This is becoming a very long piece but I will add just one more point here. The basic aim of certain creationist groups is to distort the truth about evolution. They are not interested in truth, scientific fact or intellectual honesty. Most of what is presented about evolution in this creation-evolution encyclopaedia is in many cases completely untrue, and in others a complete distortion. Consider the following example from section 29 “Say it simple”:
“According to their theory, by unthinking chance, sand and seawater changed itself into living creatures. But, really now, is that "science"?”
According to what theory did sand and seawater change itself into living creatures? I have read a great deal of evolutionary literature and I have also studied evolution at undergraduate university level (my studies are ongoing) but not once have I heard of such a claim. The first point is that evolution is not an entirely random process; certainly there are random processes underlying evolution - but the way in which evolution is driven, largely by natural selection, is not random at all.
Now then, sand and seawater, I am not sure to what this is referring but it has nothing to do with evolution. I can only assume that this is a misunderstanding of a particular hypothesis concerning the way in which life began on Earth. Scientists of course are extremely interested in the origins of life (abiogenesis); but very importantly this is not an evolutionary principle. Evolution can be described broadly as descent with modification. Evolution began when there were one or more early organisms from which to descend - and not before. Therefore the origins of life on Earth, whilst vital for evolution to occur, are not directly relevant to the validity of evolutionary theory at all.
I will just make the point that the views I have countered here are not the views of all creationists. There are sadly many sites such as this one and many people preaching those same facts. However creationist views vary quite widely and there are of course more sophisticated arguments put forward by other groups which I have not dealt with here. Contrary to what some are saying however, evolutionary theory is not crumbling under these challenges; in fact the body of evidence is growing rapidly and the new discoveries can be very accurately explained by evolutionary theory.
I think this is enough food for thought in one blog post. If anyone manages to read through this lengthy essay, then I thank you for taking the time to do so. If you have any comments or queries then please post them here and I will try and respond.
Best wishes - Dominic.
My apologies for those who are well aware of these issues already, I realise that there is a lot of literature and information which responds to creationist claims. However I feel that I need to continue that work; if I can highlight this worrying situation to just one more person then this will have been a success.
I am going to use a particular creationist website as my starting point so that I can highlight a few tactics and trends. I think I may extend this post over a few entries to try and cover as much as I can. In truth I could write hundreds of pages which refute most of the claims on this particular website – and I am not even an expert on the subject by any means. This indicates the level of bad science that is being put forward.
First things first though, evolution, well it’s only a theory isn’t it? It’s just a guess, a hunch, an idea that someone dreamed up one day - but no more than that. This is the view eagerly put forward by many creationist organisations. In science there is a technical way in which the word “theory” is used and it's very important to understand that; evolution is a theory but this does not undermine its scientific validity. In science a theory is not a hunch or a guess but a way of accurately explaining a great number of facts and allowing scientists to make predictions about what else would be true if the theory is valid. Any fact is an observation or hypothesis that has been validated so many times by evidence that we accept it as true; a theory takes many observed and verified facts and explains how and why those facts occur. A theory is a body of scientific knowledge with huge explanatory power that has been verified and substantiated so much that we accept it as true. It is vital to understand the importance of theories in science and that they do not relate in any way to the casual usage of the word.
Now, I will move on to the creationist literature which I have chosen to examine. I happened upon a link to this website recently when I was reading a film review:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/index.htm
This is the creation-evolution encyclopaedia which starts as it means to go on by making this bold claim:
“Over 3,000 scientific facts which annihilate evolutionary theory. This book is based on extensive research and is highly recommended by scientists and educators”
I would like to know which scientists and educators have endorsed this book. Where are the remarks from these distinguished professionals that substantiate this claim? This kind of sloppy work fails to adhere to academic standards and you will find more examples on every page. You cannot simply make such a bold statement and fail to back it up with any kind of evidence. However, this is one of the key tactics used by those seeking to confuse people about evolution. Quotes are used profusely and those quotes are used as evidence. Their argument goes something like this: someone said that this cannot be true – therefore it is not true. Maybe there is some kind of logical flow here, but the fact that someone said something does not make it correct. In most cases the quotes are taken out of context in order to suggest a meaning completely contradictory to that intended.
Returning to their opening statement; simply making a claim does not serve as proof either. If scientists and educators have recommended the book then please list their names. There may well be some “scientists” and “educators” who would put their name to this book but you would quickly find that they were all strongly affiliated with creationist organisations. What we are interested here is the support of people who are not swayed by personal beliefs that interfere with their subjectivity. My last sentence deserves much further qualification because we can all be influenced to some degree by our subjectivity; however this would change the purpose of this blog post entirely so I will not deal with this thought at the present time.
There is a particularly strange section on this site called "An evolutionist's paradise". Essentially this is a section in which evolutionary theory is attacked for suggesting mutations can lead to changes in organisms. The part of the section which shocked me most is titled “3-Hiroshima” the following link should direct you straight to it if you would like to have a look:
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut11.htm#Hiroshima
To sum it up the author has tried to suggest that according to evolutionary theory a massive nuclear explosion will immediately produce new species through mutation. I have to say that this section truly saddened me. World war two as a whole was a dark period of history in which the worst side of mankind was brought to the fore. The authors of this site have attempted to use the numerous victims of the Hiroshima attack as an example to help “disprove” evolution. This shows quite clearly the lengths that some people will go to. I feel I can almost let this section speak for itself, but let’s just ask a few questions. Does the theory of evolution suggest that species have evolved by continually being exposed to lethal, or at least harmful, levels of radiation? Does the theory suggest that every time a new species evolved it was caused by nuclear radiation? Anyone with even a small understanding of evolutionary processes will know that this is a ridiculous thing to say.
The article states “lots of fine new species should have been produced here” - what a horrible way to make a flawed point. Why should the devastation of an atomic bomb produce lots of fine new species? Which scientist has ever said anything remotely like that? In which piece of evolutionary literature has such a claim been found? The answer of course is that no such thing has ever been proposed by anyone in conjunction with evolution. The atomic bomb was designed to destroy and kill, it was emphatically not designed by dedicated biologists trying to prove a hypothesis about how mutation can lead to speciation.
Natural selection does act on mutations of course, but we are considering small changes to the genetic code which that are then passed on to the offspring. Exposure to massive amounts of nuclear radiation can damage living cells irreparably – this is a completely different kind of mutation. Stating “Not one of them evolved into a different species or a new super-race” is absurd and quite insensitive to any survivors or their relatives. In order for a new species to evolve, small changes have to be inherited by the offspring; may I ask which small changes and which offspring are we considering from the horrific effects of a nuclear attack?
I have barely brushed the surface of the fascinating science that we could discuss - but the authors of this site do not want to enter into honest scientific debate; this argument has not been put forward thanks to dedicated and academically sound scientific investigation. The writer of this piece has tried to hammer home a very untruthful interpretation of genetic mutation with a shocking reference to Hiroshima. I have to say that the Christianity espoused here seems to be lacking some of the humility, compassion, and honesty that Jesus displayed.
This is becoming a very long piece but I will add just one more point here. The basic aim of certain creationist groups is to distort the truth about evolution. They are not interested in truth, scientific fact or intellectual honesty. Most of what is presented about evolution in this creation-evolution encyclopaedia is in many cases completely untrue, and in others a complete distortion. Consider the following example from section 29 “Say it simple”:
“According to their theory, by unthinking chance, sand and seawater changed itself into living creatures. But, really now, is that "science"?”
According to what theory did sand and seawater change itself into living creatures? I have read a great deal of evolutionary literature and I have also studied evolution at undergraduate university level (my studies are ongoing) but not once have I heard of such a claim. The first point is that evolution is not an entirely random process; certainly there are random processes underlying evolution - but the way in which evolution is driven, largely by natural selection, is not random at all.
Now then, sand and seawater, I am not sure to what this is referring but it has nothing to do with evolution. I can only assume that this is a misunderstanding of a particular hypothesis concerning the way in which life began on Earth. Scientists of course are extremely interested in the origins of life (abiogenesis); but very importantly this is not an evolutionary principle. Evolution can be described broadly as descent with modification. Evolution began when there were one or more early organisms from which to descend - and not before. Therefore the origins of life on Earth, whilst vital for evolution to occur, are not directly relevant to the validity of evolutionary theory at all.
I will just make the point that the views I have countered here are not the views of all creationists. There are sadly many sites such as this one and many people preaching those same facts. However creationist views vary quite widely and there are of course more sophisticated arguments put forward by other groups which I have not dealt with here. Contrary to what some are saying however, evolutionary theory is not crumbling under these challenges; in fact the body of evidence is growing rapidly and the new discoveries can be very accurately explained by evolutionary theory.
I think this is enough food for thought in one blog post. If anyone manages to read through this lengthy essay, then I thank you for taking the time to do so. If you have any comments or queries then please post them here and I will try and respond.
Best wishes - Dominic.
Tuesday 14 April 2009
Once upon a time, there was Science.........
Greetings to all,
Well this is my first ever post so please be gentle....
I have recently finished a wonderful book by Ben Goldacre called (brilliantly) Bad Science. It has some great chapters regarding pseudoscience and its portrayal by the media, however it has really got me thinking....
Ive had some great conversations regarding the dumbing down of our society, but i still cant work out why this has happened. Why is it cool to seemingly appear ignorant about anything remotely scientific or technical? Is it because people have almost become afraid of Science? I think i may have found one of the reasons...
I remember an incident from early in my career. I was confronted by a technical question by the management and when I sought assistance from my supervisor, he responded "just baffle him with science......" Good answer! But jokes aside, he was on to something.
Science is continually manipulated and distorted in the Media to give credibility to an idea or product. Just watch an advert for any anti-ageing "serum" or read some of the evidence on the efficacy of these products. You will soon find yourself lost in a torrent of pseudo scientific babble, designed purely to make the reader feel somehow unqualified and prevent any consumer daring to question the evidence. However this practice seems to be spreading to other areas and it undermines the value of real Scientific Evidence. Its awful that people are somehow made to feel stupid by this, as it just pushes Science away, something that only men in white coats should dabble with, but it need not be like this!
Science has helped us shape and understand the world around us, its importance to us should never be cheapened or underestimated. I'm not suggesting that we all take an interest in Quantum Mechanics (but then again, why not?) but it is approachable on many levels and for all abilities and ages. I was delighted (and slightly amused!) when my five year old daughter returned home from school announcing that she had learnt about a chap named Charles Darwin, who sailed to the Galapagos Islands on a ship with a beagle looking for monkeys..... mistakes aside she is now hooked on the subject! Scientific enthusiasm spreads so lets all get involved and end this apathy towards scientific understanding.
Thanks...Si
Well this is my first ever post so please be gentle....
I have recently finished a wonderful book by Ben Goldacre called (brilliantly) Bad Science. It has some great chapters regarding pseudoscience and its portrayal by the media, however it has really got me thinking....
Ive had some great conversations regarding the dumbing down of our society, but i still cant work out why this has happened. Why is it cool to seemingly appear ignorant about anything remotely scientific or technical? Is it because people have almost become afraid of Science? I think i may have found one of the reasons...
I remember an incident from early in my career. I was confronted by a technical question by the management and when I sought assistance from my supervisor, he responded "just baffle him with science......" Good answer! But jokes aside, he was on to something.
Science is continually manipulated and distorted in the Media to give credibility to an idea or product. Just watch an advert for any anti-ageing "serum" or read some of the evidence on the efficacy of these products. You will soon find yourself lost in a torrent of pseudo scientific babble, designed purely to make the reader feel somehow unqualified and prevent any consumer daring to question the evidence. However this practice seems to be spreading to other areas and it undermines the value of real Scientific Evidence. Its awful that people are somehow made to feel stupid by this, as it just pushes Science away, something that only men in white coats should dabble with, but it need not be like this!
Science has helped us shape and understand the world around us, its importance to us should never be cheapened or underestimated. I'm not suggesting that we all take an interest in Quantum Mechanics (but then again, why not?) but it is approachable on many levels and for all abilities and ages. I was delighted (and slightly amused!) when my five year old daughter returned home from school announcing that she had learnt about a chap named Charles Darwin, who sailed to the Galapagos Islands on a ship with a beagle looking for monkeys..... mistakes aside she is now hooked on the subject! Scientific enthusiasm spreads so lets all get involved and end this apathy towards scientific understanding.
Thanks...Si
Friday 10 April 2009
Examine the evidence!
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"
This quote is from Charles Darwin, the man who first put forward the theory of evolution through natural selection. So there we have it, the theory of evolution is so weak that even Darwin himself didn't believe it! And the eye is just one of a number of complex organisms that evolution has utterly failed to account for.
Or has it? I am sure that many people are very familiar with the misquoting of Charles Darwin because it is a famous example of a quotation presented as a fragment and completely out of context - or quote mining as it is often known. The section quoted above is regularly presented as an argument against evolution. Even to someone unfamiliar with natural selection this should immediately arouse suspicions, could Darwin really have doubted the theory which he spent much of his life tirelessly devoted to? To set the record straight, Darwin immediately went on to say:
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
In fact Darwin was boldly addressing some of the more weighty challenges to his theory in a whole chapter of The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties on theory". This is an obvious example and one that has been addressed by many people in many books, websites and articles - but I use it again here because it gives us a clear example of a common tactic used by those seeking to distort the truth. Furthermore, when the truth is being blatantly corrupted I feel inexorably drawn to highlight this disturbing trend.
The anti-evolution literature is full of quotations such as these which are taken out of context to encourage the view that most scientists do not accept evolution. What is being preyed on here is the worrying tendency to accept what we read without subjecting it to careful analysis. We must not accept anything solely on authority alone, the scientific method gives us a much better way – obtain the data and examine the evidence. I believe that accepting personal comments and statements without a measured consideration can be particularly dangerous (and this does not apply only to scientific matters).
Let's examine a hypothetical quote. Imagine that you read in a magazine that Dr Smith has stated "Anyone who believes that Archaeopteryx displays bird-like characteristics is very badly deluded". Clearly Dr Smith doesn't think Archaeopteryx qualifies as a transitional fossil form, but what evidence has he used to justify his assertion? Whatever he has used to make his decision, it hasn't been provided to the reader. In considering this statement I would search for the evidence regarding Archaeopteryx for myself and form a conclusion based on this data.
So much that is written about key scientific ideas fails to present any evidence whatsoever, and where it does it is often only snippets or second hand information. What I strongly encourage is to double check facts, read the source material, look up quotations and examine views attributed to people against their life's work and not by a one liner presented in a magazine column. I should add the caveat that I am not encouraging skepticism to the point of impracticality, there are of course authors and specialised publications in which the information has already undergone a degree of scrutiny.
I passionately believe that science is the search for truth. Learning to carefully examine the information we are presented with is vitally important. We should approach the data we receive with a good dose of skepticism and with our critical and rational thinking fully engaged. What I want to highlight here is that there is a lot of bad science out there which is masquerading as science. Furthermore, and this is particularly the case when it comes to evolution, there is an agenda to deceive in order to encourage opposition to the very best that science has to offer. Indeed, I urge you to remain skeptical when reading this and seek to find out the truth for yourself.
I have found the study of science to be enlightening far beyond anything I could have imagined. The evidence is there for you to find and examine for yourself. We don't have to accept the theory of evolution, plate tectonics or gravity just because someone told us to, we can investigate and examine the evidence and see for ourselves what the scientific community are so keen for us to understand. Open the door and step out on to the journey of scientific understanding, you will be swept off your feet with fascination, and perhaps onwards to new scientific discoveries that will make the wonders of the natural world a little bit clearer for us all.
Many thanks for reading - Dominic.
This quote is from Charles Darwin, the man who first put forward the theory of evolution through natural selection. So there we have it, the theory of evolution is so weak that even Darwin himself didn't believe it! And the eye is just one of a number of complex organisms that evolution has utterly failed to account for.
Or has it? I am sure that many people are very familiar with the misquoting of Charles Darwin because it is a famous example of a quotation presented as a fragment and completely out of context - or quote mining as it is often known. The section quoted above is regularly presented as an argument against evolution. Even to someone unfamiliar with natural selection this should immediately arouse suspicions, could Darwin really have doubted the theory which he spent much of his life tirelessly devoted to? To set the record straight, Darwin immediately went on to say:
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
In fact Darwin was boldly addressing some of the more weighty challenges to his theory in a whole chapter of The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties on theory". This is an obvious example and one that has been addressed by many people in many books, websites and articles - but I use it again here because it gives us a clear example of a common tactic used by those seeking to distort the truth. Furthermore, when the truth is being blatantly corrupted I feel inexorably drawn to highlight this disturbing trend.
The anti-evolution literature is full of quotations such as these which are taken out of context to encourage the view that most scientists do not accept evolution. What is being preyed on here is the worrying tendency to accept what we read without subjecting it to careful analysis. We must not accept anything solely on authority alone, the scientific method gives us a much better way – obtain the data and examine the evidence. I believe that accepting personal comments and statements without a measured consideration can be particularly dangerous (and this does not apply only to scientific matters).
Let's examine a hypothetical quote. Imagine that you read in a magazine that Dr Smith has stated "Anyone who believes that Archaeopteryx displays bird-like characteristics is very badly deluded". Clearly Dr Smith doesn't think Archaeopteryx qualifies as a transitional fossil form, but what evidence has he used to justify his assertion? Whatever he has used to make his decision, it hasn't been provided to the reader. In considering this statement I would search for the evidence regarding Archaeopteryx for myself and form a conclusion based on this data.
So much that is written about key scientific ideas fails to present any evidence whatsoever, and where it does it is often only snippets or second hand information. What I strongly encourage is to double check facts, read the source material, look up quotations and examine views attributed to people against their life's work and not by a one liner presented in a magazine column. I should add the caveat that I am not encouraging skepticism to the point of impracticality, there are of course authors and specialised publications in which the information has already undergone a degree of scrutiny.
I passionately believe that science is the search for truth. Learning to carefully examine the information we are presented with is vitally important. We should approach the data we receive with a good dose of skepticism and with our critical and rational thinking fully engaged. What I want to highlight here is that there is a lot of bad science out there which is masquerading as science. Furthermore, and this is particularly the case when it comes to evolution, there is an agenda to deceive in order to encourage opposition to the very best that science has to offer. Indeed, I urge you to remain skeptical when reading this and seek to find out the truth for yourself.
I have found the study of science to be enlightening far beyond anything I could have imagined. The evidence is there for you to find and examine for yourself. We don't have to accept the theory of evolution, plate tectonics or gravity just because someone told us to, we can investigate and examine the evidence and see for ourselves what the scientific community are so keen for us to understand. Open the door and step out on to the journey of scientific understanding, you will be swept off your feet with fascination, and perhaps onwards to new scientific discoveries that will make the wonders of the natural world a little bit clearer for us all.
Many thanks for reading - Dominic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
