This is a question I've always asked myself, especially when I see some of the tripe published as letters in many national newspapers. A recent case in point concerned a spate of letters published under the sub-header: 'Science, Great as it is, Can't Answer Every Question', in the Oct. 19th Wall Street Journal.
One could, inf act, complain about the wording of the header itself, since neither pure science nor applied claims to be able to answer every question. All it claims is the curiosity to ASK a question, and then diligently pursue an answer. That is all science is about at the end of the day.
Nevertheless, the letters embody even more misunderstanding.
For example, John F. Haggerty writes:
"Though evolution may explain the process by which life evolves, it doesn't explain why or how the process began"
As to "why" it began, Haggerty is correct, science doesn't go there. The reason is that 'why' questions lead into teleology and self-reference while delivering no concrete sufficient cause or better, sufficient conditions for the necessity of purpose. Additionally, it necessitates an unwarranted extrapolation beyond what science can actually assert with its data.
Thus, we do not ask "Why do stars shine?" - but the more productive question: HOW do stars shine? The latter enabled diligent pursuit into nuclear fusion processes and quantum mechanics, thereby enabling us to ascertain the stars could only shine via nuclear fusion reactions.
'Why?' remains a mystery, and in any case is irrelevant since the answer doesn't assist us in making future predictions.
By the same token, we refrain from asking WHY species evolve, opting instead for the more productive HOW do they evolve? Well, by a combination of mutation and natural selection.
As to HOW life began, Haggerty hasn't been paying attention. While we don't have a firm lights out theory for the origin of life (which is NOT the same as evolution!) we have a good working hypothesis.
The consensus of current research is already fairly clear about the nature or form of the first primitive organisms. They were prokaryotic autotrophs[1]. More specifically, they were suspended colloidal micro-spheres capable of exchanging energy with their surroundings. To get energy, these self-sustaining coacervate droplets could use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate:[2]
L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP
ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P
In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy. Compound R is perhaps a protenoid, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. Concurrent with the first reaction is the possibility of a second, entailing autocatalytic molecules X*Y. These molecules could accelerate their own formation, using ATP.
On the basis of the chemical reactions, the hypothetical coacervate would consist of the combination: X*Y + R. Now, what properties ought we expect for any such primitive life form? These include: simple organization, ability to increase in size, and ability to maintain itself over extended intervals. Does the coacervate meet these conditions?
Well, it has a simple organization, consisting of the molecules X*Y and R. It can increase its size by synthesizing more of X*Y, growing until hydrodynamically unstable. Finally, it can maintain itself over indefinite intervals, so long as it can extract the chemical components it needs. What about replication? We expect that this is feasible when it splits into ‘daughters’ after growing too large. Then, so long as each has some of the protenoid R there is the capacity for replication.
A logical question is whether there is anything that can remotely compare to the theoretical construct above. In fact, there is, and it’s called a pleuro-pneumonia like organism or PPLO for short. The PPLO is as close to the theoretical limit of how small an organism can be[3]. Some figures clarify this. It has about 12 million atoms, and a molecular weight of 2.88 million Daltons[4].
Compared to an amoeba, it weighs about one billions times less.
Haggerty goes on to assert:
"Evolution doesn't account for the very fact of existence itself".
Again, IF Haggerty means accounting for "the fact of existence" in terms of WHY - he is quite correct. If he means in terms of HOW - he is quite incorrect. Because evolution admirably accounts for the fact of existence itself in terms of HOW all the diverse, observed speciation came to be!
Haggerty then poses the most fundamental ontological problem:
"Why there is something and not nothing is one of man's most basic questions and one natural scientists cannot answer".
But why should we? Truth be told, the question is more apropos to religionists and God believers than secular scientists. Consider this: If nothingness be the more perfect state (no gross defects, no sin, no atavistic impulses to cause crimes, etc.) and if God knew about how much havoc and tragedy creating a cosmos would incept (since he presumably had the attribute of omniscience), WHY do it? THIS is an eminently religious question, not a scientific one!
Why then add to what was already perfect? Why indeed add what God had to know before all time would be manifestly IMPERFECT?
Since religion is concerned with the matters of right and wrong, this is their domain, not science's! Science can at least posit the spontaneous inception of the cosmos via quantum bootstrapping and have an answer for how it all began, which isn't perfect - but nonetheless is adequate for most serious scientists. More importantly, it is a physical agency not contingent on supernatural effects.
By the same token, Haggerty's ending endorsement of the "need for Man to find meaning to his existence" may be a supreme task for most humans, but to practicing scientists it isn't necessary to find some transcendent meaning in our lives. We obtain our meaning (purpose) in the work, research that we do to extend the frontiers of knowledge.
Meanwhile, the next writer, David Maj - appeals to fairy stories and legends:
"The real clash, as I see it, is spelled out with great wisdom in the story of creation where Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because they wanted the power to define what is right and wrong".
But, of course, Maj blithely skips over the fact that what "is right and wrong" is relative, never absolute. He or others may not like this, but there it is. Thus, it is "wrong" to kill - but perfectly okay if it means you are gassing a murderer to death in a state-approved execution, or waging war against some distant, proclaimed enemy.
So okay, yeah, it's "wrong" ---- with exceptions! But, if it has exceptions then it clearly can't be an absolute!
Invoking "Adam and Eve" and a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" clarifies little. What is far more productive is to examine the brain in detail, and see how it is configured and how it can easily be the cause of our split lives - aspiring to always do "good", but more often than not failing.
What people refer to as “evil” is easily explainable in terms of brain evolution. Thus, Homo Sapiens is fundamentally an animal species with a host of animal/primitive instincts residing in its ancient brain or paleocortex.Meanwhile, the paleocortex sits evolutionarily beneath the more evolved mesocortex and neocortex, the latter of which crafts concepts and language. One clever person has compared this tri-partite brain structure to a car design welding a Lamborghini to a Model T Ford chassis, with a 1957 Chevy engine to power the Lamborghini. If an automotive engineer can conceive of such a hybrid beast, I'd be interested to know exactly how he thinks it would run.
Given the preceding brain structural defect, there is much evidence that the aggregate of human behavior will get progressively worse as the complexity inherent in technological and globalized societies increases, but brain evolution is unable to keep pace with it. Basically, we are a species with the capability of making nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles – but with Cro-Magnon brains – and a swatch of reptilian tendencies.
Indeed, the mixed brain design, in terms of adaptability to technological society, is already theorized as one major cause of depression and mental illness in such societies (e.g. The Noonday Demon, Chapter 11, ‘Evolution’, p 401). The behavior resulting from this hybrid brain is bound to be morally mixed, reflecting the fact that we literally have three “brains” contending for emergence in one cranium. Imagine a thinking human, ape and crococdile fighting with each other for supremacy. That's what goes in your brain non-stop every waking minute of every day. Some people can't handle it which is why they "lose it" then we hear about the "quiet guy that killed six people at the bank and no one ever saw him get mad before".
Behavior will therefore range from the most selfless acts (not to mention creative masterpieces) to savagery and murder, carnal lust run amuck and addictions that paralyze purpose.The mistake of the religionist is to associate the first mode of behavior with being “human” and not the latter.
The last clueless letter writer, a Jim Reardon, asserts that we "secularists fail to realize that the arguments for the immateriality of the human intellect do not begin and end with religion"
Fair enough. At which point he avers:
"Aristotle reasoned that while the material brain and sensory organs are a necessary basis for human understanding, they are not sufficient causes"
But who is Aristotle? This is the same guy who developed a physics of motion relying on the principle that when bodies fall they are under the impetus of their "desire to fall" and the one that wishes to fall faster, will. Contrast this with Galileo's meticulous data and experiments that showed all objects fall to Earth with the same acceleration at the same place and this is the result of no internal desire but of the Earth's gravitational attraction.
In terms of "sufficient causes", Reardon is quite right that the mere existence of the brain and sense organs isn't enough. Critical cortical thresholds must be crossed for conscious brain function, and these begin with the resting action potential as applied to the axon membrane walls of the neuron. A baseline wave pulse amplitude of ~ (-70) mV is required and this results from an uneven distribution of potassium (K+) ions across the axon cell membrane relative to a collection of negatively charged protein molecules inside the cells.
Too much to get into right now, but we can re-visit it at a later date!
------
[1] A prokaryote has one chromosome only, dispersed in its cytoplasm. An autotroph is an organism that doesn’t depend on others for nutrition.
[2] See, e.g. Zindler, Frank: 1989, How Did Life Begin- Part III, The American Atheist, April, 1989, page 42.
[3] Viruses are smaller, of course, but they’re not regarded as free living organisms. That is, they require a host in order to live, replicate.
[4] One Dalton: roughly the mass-weight of a hydrogen atom or 1.66 x 10^-27 kg.
No comments:
Post a Comment