Category Archives: evolution

beyond belief

Well, it’s been some time since I’ve posted anything serious.  Now that I’m studying for exams though I naturally turn back to something distracting while hopefully being somewhat productive in this distraction.

I’ve been watching videos from the Beyond Belief conference at the Salk Institute over the past week or two.  One word:  Yes.  That yes is a fully positive endorsement of this conference and a hope for many more to come.  That said, I’ve been searching for post-BB commentary and came across an opinion piece by Sam Harris.  The wonderful exchange between Scott Atran, Sam Harris, and others on Edge not included (and highly recommended), there seems to be a general glossing over of some thoughtful commentary.  Glossing turned to spin in Harris’ piece posted as an op-ed on the Council for Secular Humanism website.  Let’s take a closer look:

Recently, I attended a three-day conference at the Salk Institute, organized by The Science Network. The conference was titled, Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival and was conducted as a town-hall meeting before an audience of invited guests. Speakers included Steven Weinberg, Harold Kroto, Richard Dawkins, and many other scientists and philosophers who have been, and remain, energetic opponents of religious unreason. And then there were other esteemed participants and audience members who proved themselves to be eager purveyors of American-style religious bewilderment.

And the spin begins…

It was a room full of bright, scientifically literate people—molecular biologists, anthropologists, physicists, engineers—and yet, three days were insufficient to force agreement on whether or not there is any conflict between religion and science.

You mean, after hundreds of years of debate on science and religion, this three day conference didn’t solve the relationship between these two massive enterprises?  You’re kidding!

While at Salk, I witnessed scientists giving voice to some of the most unctuous religious apologies I have ever heard. It is one thing to be told that the pope is a great champion of reason and that his opposition to embryonic stem cell research has nothing to do with religious dogmatism; it is quite another to be told this by a Stanford physician who sits on the President’s Council on Bioethics.

Oh, what’s that in your pocket Sam?  Oh yes, it’s a bunch of embryonic stem cells.  You love to whip those little guys out whenever you have a chance.  Mr. Harris, your characterization of Dr. William Hurlbut’s comments (and note that you only named people on your side of the argument throughout this piece) is quite inappropriate Hurlbut’s comments did not center on stem cells.  Hurlbut’s comments were in the spirit of having an understanding of any given dogma before criticizing it.  And not just a read through with untutored eyes.  A skeptical read, but a read open to more than a literal interpretation.  This seems to me something you would want more people, believers or not, to do.  Further, for someone seemingly so familiar with Buddhist traditions, it seems rather odd that the distinction between esoteric (Vajrayana) and exoteric (Mahayana) texts and practices has not even popped up in the midst of discussion.  And what about the ideals of a Bodhisattva?  Prajna (wisdom), virya (warriors spirit), and upaya (skillful means)?  Mr. Harris’ argument certainly shows plenty of warriors spirit but seems to be lacking skillful means.

Over the course of the meeting, I had the pleasure of hearing that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were examples of secularism run amok,

No. Examples of dogmas as or more deadly than religion.

that the doctrines of martyrdom and jihad have nothing whatsoever to do with Muslim terrorism,

Just watch the back-and-forth between Sam Harris and Scott Atran to see that this is not so.

that people can never be argued out of their beliefs because we live in an irrational world,

Another hyperbolic comment!  Scott Atran’s comments were to the effect of dealing with rationality in a fundamentally irrational world, not that it is a lost cause to challenge people on contentious beliefs.

that science has made no important contributions to our ethical lives,

Stop Sam.  Stop!  Listen to yourself!  Anyone who cares enough to know what was actually said can download the entire conference.  Doing so, and particularly after watching Susan Neiman’s talk, one sees a different ethos.  One that welcomes empirical data and wishes for more empiricism in informing ethical and moral decision making but contending that this tells us what ‘is’ while the ‘ought to be’ remains impoverished by such means.  Far from being one sided, this was then challenged by the Churchlands with thoughtful criticism.  It’s a great exchange of ideas, apparently so great Mr. Harris has kindly cherry picked it from his memory and squashed it on the floor.

and that it is not the job of scientists “to take away people’s hope”—all from atheist scientists, happily trading in the most abject and paralyzing shibboleths of academic political correctness.

Heck, even Richard Dawkins said he would not challenge someone’s beliefs on their deathbed…

There were several moments during our panel discussions that brought to mind the final scene of Invasion of the Body Snatchers—people who looked like scientists, had published as scientists, and would soon be returning to their labs nevertheless gave voice to the alien hiss of religious lunacy at the slightest prodding. In case anyone thought that the front lines in our culture wars could be found at the entrance to a megachurch, I am here to report that we still have considerable work to do in a nearby trench.

For all the frustration I felt at this meeting,

…receiving thoughtful criticism of your arguments, being called on repeated arguments and abuse of language…

it seemed like the perfect forum in which to resolve the centuries-old collision between reason and faith. If reputable scientists cannot be made to agree that there are important intellectual and moral differences between knowing something and pretending to know it, we are doomed.

Argumentum ad Bacculum.

Happily, the meeting at Salk will be convened again next fall. Perhaps then it will be possible to rule out the Virgin Birth of Jesus as a valid scientific hypothesis.

Sam continues, giving four questions he’d like answered.  Unfortunately I do not have the time to go through this and formulate a thoughtful response.  Biochemistry awaits…

I’ll finish off by pointing out that as much as Sam Harris argues for corrections of ‘problems of discourse’ and ‘intellectual honesty’ during the Beyond Belief conference, he seems to take these concerns off like a coat as he takes the time to write pieces like this which perpetuate the problem of discourse and veil what actually happened.  Despite this opinion piece though, Harris made some very good points at the Salk.  There is every reason to challenge beliefs that can reduce someone to resembling something like this.  And for all the heavy arguments and bruised egos, it is quite stimulating to watch or listen to the proceedings, particularly Neil de Grasse Tyson’s equally inspiring and hilarious lecture, and I would encourage anyone who has made it this far in the post to check it out.  Certainly don’t take this post as the word on the conference, and equally so, do not take Mr. Harris’ opinion as a full synopsis either.

P.S.  Has anyone found any articles by Sam Harris in a scholarly science journal or a poster at a conference?  I can’t seem to find any.

late nightness

this is funny and is taking the sting out of the jarring sound next door, but if the car in the parking lot does not shut it’s alarm off i’m going to throw a brick at it. argh.

Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution

The Onion

Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution

TOPEKA, KS—Any living being that undergoes genetic modification favoring survival could face jail time under the new law.

Music, like sex and food?

Origins of musicianship or music appreciation may dictate why and how our feet tap and our heads bob. But do they dictate musical taste? Why some can’t stand Tom Waits and others can’t get enough of The Velvet Underground and still others prefer Bach? Can evolution explain an ingenious composition and the significance of what that piece stands for?

From The Boston Globe:

There is suggestive research linking music and sociability. Daniel Levitin, for instance, points to the difference between two mental disorders, Williams syndrome and autism. People with Williams are mentally retarded, but at the same time, as Levitin puts it, “highly social, highly verbal, and highly musical.” Autism, on the other hand, while it also often causes mental impairment, tends to make people both less social and less musical.
To Steven Pinker, though, none of this adds up to a convincing case for music’s evolutionary purpose. Pinker is not shy about seeing the traces of evolution in modern man-in “How the Mind Works” he devoted a chapter to arguing that emotions were adaptations-but he stands by his “auditory cheesecake” description.
“They’re completely bogus explanations, because they assume what they set out to prove: that hearing plinking sounds brings the group together, or that music relieves tension,” he says.
“But they don’t explain why. They assume as big a mystery as they solve.” Music may well be innate, he argues, but that could just as easily mean it evolved as a useless byproduct of language, which he sees as an actual adaptation.
And Pinker isn’t the only skeptic. Back in April, as part of an experiment led by Levitin to compare the physiological response of performers and listeners, Boston Pops maestro Keith Lockhart conducted the Boston Symphony Orchestra while he, a few musicians, and a portion of the audience were wired with monitors that tracked their heart rate, muscle tension, respiration, and other bodily signals of emotion.
Yet though Lockhart was happy to make himself Levitin’s guinea pig, he confesses to be ultimately uninterested in the origins of music.
“It’s enough for me to know that music does have a distinct emotional reaction in almost everybody that no other art form can boast of,” he says. “I’ve never particularly wanted to know why that happens.”

neuroscience vs. intelligent design?

A little blurb on an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education relates that the debate over ID may be spreading in subject matter. To quote:

// The supporters of intelligent design are also moving beyond evolution to other areas of research that might mesh well with their guiding philosophy of a creative entity that manifests itself in nature. As its long-term goal, the Discovery Institute has vowed to push what it calls design theory beyond biology and cosmology into such fields as psychology, ethics, philosophy, and the fine arts.

// At the AAAS meeting, James A. Murray, an assistant professor of biology at the University of Central Arkansas, reported on several signs that the neurosciences could emerge as a major battleground soon. The conflict is brewing because most scientists who study the brain are convinced the mind is produced entirely by neural activity, and that there is no metaphysical component to the mind.

// In fact, while many religious leaders see no discord between evolution and theology, Mr. Murray wonders whether the direction of neuroscience research will prove unpalatable to religious people. “There is more of a concern that with neuroscience, there may not be as much room for compatibility,” he said in an interview. “It could be considered threatening to religious beliefs for people who believe in a soul.”

While the Society for Neuroscience has issued a statement on intelligent design and evolution, it will be interesting to see if intelligent design proponents hone in on evolution as it relates to neuroscience. For starters, here’s one blurb from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA), an ID organization:

// Consciousness, Free Will, and Mind-Brain Studies. Is conscious will an illusion—we think that we have acted freely and deliberately toward some end, but in fact our brain acted on its own and then deceived us into thinking that we acted deliberately. This is the majority position in the cognitive neuroscience community, and a recent book makes just that claim in its title: The Illusion of Conscious Will by Harvard psychologist Daniel Wegner. But there is now growing evidence that consciousness is not reducible to material processes of the brain and that free will is in fact real. Jeffrey Schwartz at UCLA along with quantum physicist Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are two of the key researchers presently providing experimental and theoretical support for the irreducibility of mind to brain (see Schwartz’s book The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force).

Nothing about evolution mentioned, although irreducible complexity is invoked. (As a side note, click here for a roundtable discussion on the mind/soul debate from Science & the City). As I am continuing to distract myself from finishing this paper, I will simply leave off now with a link to papers by Henry Stapp. Again, much more on this to follow…


from toothpaste for dinner

ken miller on intelligent design

Ken Miller, the biologist and witness for the Dover trial (and not to be confused with Ken Miller), presented a lecture (originally scheduled as a debate) at Case Western Reserve University on January 3, 2006. Miller’s home page contains links to the lecture, although I also found one floating around on youtube. Miller’s a showman but the arguments he puts forward are quite convincing. There’s also an evolution resources page available on his site. I’m still rummaging around for a back and forth between an ID supporter and opponent, although this comes close.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

The point on Intelligent Design supporters jumping the scientific process in order to teach the controversy is quite a crucial one, as is Miller having to relabel the sticker placed on his text (shown above) to warn students that all scientific theories, and not merely evolution, should be judged critically. As far as teaching the controversy is concerned though, would it not make more sense to touch on epistemology, logic, and the philosophy of science? To suggest that evolution is dogmatic while replacing it with another dogma, that of irreducible complexity, is far from a sound education. Give me a debate in science education, but, dear professors and teachers, why not equip us students with the means to think scientifically, logically, mathematically, and rationally? It seems to me this is a lot closer to ‘teaching the controversy’ and will leave us far more prepared to face our dissertations, and maybe even our ethics review boards.

And hey, check this out.