[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 5, 2005
Next time you meet an obnoxious "funnymentalist" - just show them this!
How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution
By CORNELIA DEAN
In the fall of 1900, a young German physicist, Max Planck, began making
calculations about the glow emitted by objects heated to high temperature. In
retrospect, it seems like a small-bore problem, just the task to give a young
scientist at the beginning of his career.
But if the question sounds minor, Planck's answer was not. His work led him to
discover a new world, the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics, where matter is
both a particle and a wave and where the predictable stability of Newton gives
way to probabilistic uncertainty.
As Dennis Overbye of The New York Times once put it in these pages, Planck had
grasped "a loose thread that when tugged would eventually unravel the entire
fabric of what had passed for reality."
Physicists reeled. But physics survived. And once they got over their shock,
scientists began testing Planck's ideas with observation and experiment, work
that eventually produced computer chips, lasers, CAT scans and a host of other
useful technologies - all made possible through our new understanding of the
way the world works.
Biologists might do well to keep Planck in mind as they confront creationism
and "intelligent design" and battle to preserve the teaching of evolution in
public schools.
Usually, when confronting the opponents of evolution, biologists make the case
that evolution should be taught because it is true.
They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a
few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it. Biologists cite
research on microbes, or the eye, or the biology of the cell to shoot down
arguments that life is so "irreducibly complex" that only a supernatural force
or agent could have called it into being, as intelligent designers would have
it.
And when scientists named Steve (hundreds of them by now) decided to advance
the cause of evolution in the classroom and honor the evolutionary theorist
Stephen Jay Gould by forming "Project Steve," the T-shirts they printed said in
part, "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of
the idea that all living things share a common ancestry."
The battling biologists are right. But someone uneducated in the scientific
method who listens to the arguments over evolution could be forgiven for
thinking that they boil down to "my theory is better than your theory," with
both sides preaching with theological fervor.
Scientists don't talk often enough or loud enough about the real strength of
evolution - not that it is correct, but that it meets the definition of
science.
It's not that they ignore the idea - the National Center for Science Education,
sponsor of Project Steve, makes the point on its Web site, and organizations
like the American Association for the Advancement of Science do, too. But
biologists do not emphasize it as they might.
Science looks to explain nature through nature (the works of God rather than
the words of God, as Darwin himself is said to have put it), and its
predictions can be tested by observation and experimentation.
Scientists form hypotheses, devise ways to test them, analyze the data that
they collect and then decide whether the results support or undermine their
hypotheses.
This process has produced centuries of useful knowledge and fascinating
discovery.
But it is messy, a mixed-up dance of two steps forward, one step back; dud
ideas; blind alleys; and things that turn out to be not exactly what they
seemed.
So it is hardly surprising that in the decades since Darwin developed the ideas
he outlined in "The Origin of Species," other biologists have suggested
modifications or new ideas about this or that aspect of his great idea. Still
other researchers, making their own observations or conducting other
experiments, have refuted them or tried to.
For example, biologists argue about the degree to which evolution moves
smoothly or progresses in fits and starts, a Gould-ian theory called punctuated
equilibrium. This intellectual turmoil is not evidence of the weakness of the
evolutionary thinking, as some critics have said. It is proof of the robustness
of the scientific method.
And if this messy process were to produce an alternative to evolution that
better explains nature and better meets the tests of experiment and
observation, biologists would have to revise their ideas or even scrap them.
That would be a stunning shock, comparable to the shock that swept physics in
the post-Planck decades of the 20th century. But biology would deal with it.
And whoever initiated this shock would be at least as big a figure in biology
as Planck is in physics.
"The supposed 'data contradicting evolution' do not exist," a Steve, Dr. Steve
Rissing, a biologist at Ohio State University, said in an e-mail message.
But if they did, Dr. Rissing added, "I sure would want to be the scientist
publishing them. Think of it - the covers of Nature and Science, and Newsweek
and Time, too!"
It is evolution's acceptance of nature as the only true scientific authority
and its capacity to fall in the face of a more effective explanation that make
evolution science, far more than its mere correctness.
That is the difficulty faced by advocates of creationism and intelligent
design. It is possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Plenty of
biologists do. But their deity is not a creator or intelligent agent at work in
the material world in ways that transcend nature and its laws. That would be a
matter of faith, not science.
a.. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
b.. Home
c.. Privacy Policy
d.. Search
e.. Corrections
f.. XML
g.. Help
h.. Contact Us
i.. Work for Us
j.. Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 5, 2005
How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution
By CORNELIA DEAN
In the fall of 1900, a young German physicist, Max Planck, began making
calculations about the glow emitted by objects heated to high temperature. In
retrospect, it seems like a small-bore problem, just the task to give a young
scientist at the beginning of his career.
But if the question sounds minor, Planck's answer was not. His work led him to
discover a new world, the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics, where matter is
both a particle and a wave and where the predictable stability of Newton gives
way to probabilistic uncertainty.
As Dennis Overbye of The New York Times once put it in these pages, Planck had
grasped "a loose thread that when tugged would eventually unravel the entire
fabric of what had passed for reality."
Physicists reeled. But physics survived. And once they got over their shock,
scientists began testing Planck's ideas with observation and experiment, work
that eventually produced computer chips, lasers, CAT scans and a host of other
useful technologies - all made possible through our new understanding of the
way the world works.
Biologists might do well to keep Planck in mind as they confront creationism
and "intelligent design" and battle to preserve the teaching of evolution in
public schools.
Usually, when confronting the opponents of evolution, biologists make the case
that evolution should be taught because it is true.
They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a
few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it. Biologists cite
research on microbes, or the eye, or the biology of the cell to shoot down
arguments that life is so "irreducibly complex" that only a supernatural force
or agent could have called it into being, as intelligent designers would have
it.
And when scientists named Steve (hundreds of them by now) decided to advance
the cause of evolution in the classroom and honor the evolutionary theorist
Stephen Jay Gould by forming "Project Steve," the T-shirts they printed said in
part, "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of
the idea that all living things share a common ancestry."
The battling biologists are right. But someone uneducated in the scientific
method who listens to the arguments over evolution could be forgiven for
thinking that they boil down to "my theory is better than your theory," with
both sides preaching with theological fervor.
Scientists don't talk often enough or loud enough about the real strength of
evolution - not that it is correct, but that it meets the definition of
science.
It's not that they ignore the idea - the National Center for Science Education,
sponsor of Project Steve, makes the point on its Web site, and organizations
like the American Association for the Advancement of Science do, too. But
biologists do not emphasize it as they might.
Science looks to explain nature through nature (the works of God rather than
the words of God, as Darwin himself is said to have put it), and its
predictions can be tested by observation and experimentation.
Scientists form hypotheses, devise ways to test them, analyze the data that
they collect and then decide whether the results support or undermine their
hypotheses.
This process has produced centuries of useful knowledge and fascinating
discovery.
But it is messy, a mixed-up dance of two steps forward, one step back; dud
ideas; blind alleys; and things that turn out to be not exactly what they
seemed.
So it is hardly surprising that in the decades since Darwin developed the ideas
he outlined in "The Origin of Species," other biologists have suggested
modifications or new ideas about this or that aspect of his great idea. Still
other researchers, making their own observations or conducting other
experiments, have refuted them or tried to.
For example, biologists argue about the degree to which evolution moves
smoothly or progresses in fits and starts, a Gould-ian theory called punctuated
equilibrium. This intellectual turmoil is not evidence of the weakness of the
evolutionary thinking, as some critics have said. It is proof of the robustness
of the scientific method.
And if this messy process were to produce an alternative to evolution that
better explains nature and better meets the tests of experiment and
observation, biologists would have to revise their ideas or even scrap them.
That would be a stunning shock, comparable to the shock that swept physics in
the post-Planck decades of the 20th century. But biology would deal with it.
And whoever initiated this shock would be at least as big a figure in biology
as Planck is in physics.
"The supposed 'data contradicting evolution' do not exist," a Steve, Dr. Steve
Rissing, a biologist at Ohio State University, said in an e-mail message.
But if they did, Dr. Rissing added, "I sure would want to be the scientist
publishing them. Think of it - the covers of Nature and Science, and Newsweek
and Time, too!"
It is evolution's acceptance of nature as the only true scientific authority
and its capacity to fall in the face of a more effective explanation that make
evolution science, far more than its mere correctness.
That is the difficulty faced by advocates of creationism and intelligent
design. It is possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Plenty of
biologists do. But their deity is not a creator or intelligent agent at work in
the material world in ways that transcend nature and its laws. That would be a
matter of faith, not science.
a.. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
b.. Home
c.. Privacy Policy
d.. Search
e.. Corrections
f.. XML
g.. Help
h.. Contact Us
i.. Work for Us
j.. Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 5, 2005
How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution
By CORNELIA DEAN
In the fall of 1900, a young German physicist, Max Planck, began making
calculations about the glow emitted by objects heated to high temperature. In
retrospect, it seems like a small-bore problem, just the task to give a young
scientist at the beginning of his career.
But if the question sounds minor, Planck's answer was not. His work led him to
discover a new world, the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics, where matter is
both a particle and a wave and where the predictable stability of Newton gives
way to probabilistic uncertainty.
As Dennis Overbye of The New York Times once put it in these pages, Planck had
grasped "a loose thread that when tugged would eventually unravel the entire
fabric of what had passed for reality."
Physicists reeled. But physics survived. And once they got over their shock,
scientists began testing Planck's ideas with observation and experiment, work
that eventually produced computer chips, lasers, CAT scans and a host of other
useful technologies - all made possible through our new understanding of the
way the world works.
Biologists might do well to keep Planck in mind as they confront creationism
and "intelligent design" and battle to preserve the teaching of evolution in
public schools.
Usually, when confronting the opponents of evolution, biologists make the case
that evolution should be taught because it is true.
They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a
few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it. Biologists cite
research on microbes, or the eye, or the biology of the cell to shoot down
arguments that life is so "irreducibly complex" that only a supernatural force
or agent could have called it into being, as intelligent designers would have
it.
And when scientists named Steve (hundreds of them by now) decided to advance
the cause of evolution in the classroom and honor the evolutionary theorist
Stephen Jay Gould by forming "Project Steve," the T-shirts they printed said in
part, "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the
biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of
the idea that all living things share a common ancestry."
The battling biologists are right. But someone uneducated in the scientific
method who listens to the arguments over evolution could be forgiven for
thinking that they boil down to "my theory is better than your theory," with
both sides preaching with theological fervor.
Scientists don't talk often enough or loud enough about the real strength of
evolution - not that it is correct, but that it meets the definition of
science.
It's not that they ignore the idea - the National Center for Science Education,
sponsor of Project Steve, makes the point on its Web site, and organizations
like the American Association for the Advancement of Science do, too. But
biologists do not emphasize it as they might.
Science looks to explain nature through nature (the works of God rather than
the words of God, as Darwin himself is said to have put it), and its
predictions can be tested by observation and experimentation.
Scientists form hypotheses, devise ways to test them, analyze the data that
they collect and then decide whether the results support or undermine their
hypotheses.
This process has produced centuries of useful knowledge and fascinating
discovery.
But it is messy, a mixed-up dance of two steps forward, one step back; dud
ideas; blind alleys; and things that turn out to be not exactly what they
seemed.
So it is hardly surprising that in the decades since Darwin developed the ideas
he outlined in "The Origin of Species," other biologists have suggested
modifications or new ideas about this or that aspect of his great idea. Still
other researchers, making their own observations or conducting other
experiments, have refuted them or tried to.
For example, biologists argue about the degree to which evolution moves
smoothly or progresses in fits and starts, a Gould-ian theory called punctuated
equilibrium. This intellectual turmoil is not evidence of the weakness of the
evolutionary thinking, as some critics have said. It is proof of the robustness
of the scientific method.
And if this messy process were to produce an alternative to evolution that
better explains nature and better meets the tests of experiment and
observation, biologists would have to revise their ideas or even scrap them.
That would be a stunning shock, comparable to the shock that swept physics in
the post-Planck decades of the 20th century. But biology would deal with it.
And whoever initiated this shock would be at least as big a figure in biology
as Planck is in physics.
"The supposed 'data contradicting evolution' do not exist," a Steve, Dr. Steve
Rissing, a biologist at Ohio State University, said in an e-mail message.
But if they did, Dr. Rissing added, "I sure would want to be the scientist
publishing them. Think of it - the covers of Nature and Science, and Newsweek
and Time, too!"
It is evolution's acceptance of nature as the only true scientific authority
and its capacity to fall in the face of a more effective explanation that make
evolution science, far more than its mere correctness.
That is the difficulty faced by advocates of creationism and intelligent
design. It is possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Plenty of
biologists do. But their deity is not a creator or intelligent agent at work in
the material world in ways that transcend nature and its laws. That would be a
matter of faith, not science.
a.. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
