|
|
|
|
10/7/03 Is the Universe a Closed System? Intelligent Design proponents distinguish what they call “microevolution” from what they call “macroevolution.” Microevolution represents the observable process of mutation and natural selection that causes genetic drift and small-scale speciation (as in the split of a species of mosquito into two separate species). Macroevolution represents the prehistoric and therefore unobservable process of evolution that produced life and all its various forms. While they credit microevolution as factual, they dispute the notion that macroevolution can adequately explain major shifts in biology, such as the transition from pre-biotic to biotic organic chemistry, or the development of complex biological systems like the eye. In order to make this distinction, they explicitly reject one of the fundamental postulates of science, which is that the universe is a closed system. This may not actually be true, but if we don’t make the assumption, all scientific investigation becomes impossible. To illustrate this, let us take the simple theory of gravity as an example. By observation, we can test the outcome of dropping objects in a vacuum and calculate based on our observations the precise force exerted by the Earth on an object. But the conclusion that the Earth and the object exert on each other a certain force proportional to their masses is based on the assumption that the mass of the object and the Earth were constant in each observation, and that that no energy was being added to or removed from the system during the observations. If we open ourselves to the possibility that the total mass/energy of the Earth-object system is variable (that someone—let’s call her the Big Juju to be at once facetious and politically correct—can change the parameters during our observation), then we can conclude nothing about the nature of gravity. It is possible that there is no gravity at all, but that the Big Juju constantly intervenes to move objects closer together with an apparent force proportional to their masses. Or the force of gravity may exist, but be augmented occasionally by the Big Juju to give us a distorted picture of the real situation. Any of this is possible. The universe could be a cosmic puppet show with some otherworldly force like my tongue-in-cheek Big Juju pulling strings manipulating every particle in an eternal dance for whatever otherworldly purpose. If this is so, then anything that we think we know, from the confidence that a dropped apple will fall to earth to the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, could be shattered at any moment if the Big Juju (or whoever) decides to pull a different string. Those who choose to try to identify the puppet master or mistress and divine his or her purpose so as to please him or her and achieve eternal life beyond this universe may in the end be triumphant if their particular belief turns out to be correct. But what is clear (to SoothSeeker, at least) from many centuries of such quests is that, while there are plenty of fairly plausible models of the puppet master or mistress out there, there is no reliable empirical evidence to make it clear which model is true. It is a matter of faith, and faith rests on assumptions (and yes, this includes faith in scientific research). And that is where the scientific method starts: from the point at which we admit that, if all that we observe does not behave according to its own rules, but is being manipulated from elsewhere, then we can have no real knowledge until the curtain is drawn on our little scene in the cosmic drama (if there is any knowing anything at that point). But, on the assumption that what we see is self-contained and behaves according to uniform rules across all of reality, there is much that we can know, such as that objects exert an attraction on each other proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. And on the same basis of knowledge we know that life, because it exists on Earth and Earth did not always exist—since to all indications there was a time when no conditions existed under which life as we know it was even possible (during the Big Bang and shortly afterward) arose at some point by a process which, even if we never define it to anyone’s satisfaction, did take place. The Design proponents want to have their cake and eat it, too. They don’t want to question the underlying assumption of science when it comes to direct observation in the present. But they want to be able to deny that when we extend our observations into remote places in time and space, we can be confident that the same rules applied. They argue that it is improbable that self-replicating organic chemicals could have arisen by chance, because no one has so far come up with a combination of conditions and events that would overcome the apparent obstacles to such a formation. But since no one knows precisely what the conditions were when self-replicating organic chemicals arose, it is really impossible to assess the probabilities. By immediately resorting to the Design hypothesis, they effectively declare that whenever something cannot immediately be explained, it is appropriate to put aside the foundation of empirical knowledge in order to arrive at the conclusion that some conscious force (the Big Juju) from outside the universe has intervened to produce the change. There really is no middle ground, here. If the fundamental assumption of science is false, then anything that is currently believed to be true based on scientific research is doubtful, including all of the knowledge of biochemistry and paleontology that Design proponents rely upon to try to discredit the theory of evolution. If the Big Juju could intervene to make the impossible happen when life was formed and when major biological innovations took place, she could intervene at any and every moment in time to make everything happen that we observe happening, rendering the words “possible” and “impossible” meaningless. Nothing can be “impossible” because either 1) any currently understood “rules” or “laws” of nature could be broken at any time, yielding the equation “impossible” = “possible”, or 2) there are really no rules, so everything is possible when it happens and impossible when it doesn’t. In short, anything happens if and only if the Big Juju wants it to happen, and there is no guarantee, therefore, that something “possible” at one moment will be “possible” at another. (It is worth pointing out that most Christian sects take precisely this official view of reality, crediting God with all good things in their lives, and presuming that in one way or another everything that happens, including the development of storms or the shattering of fault lines, amounts to a deliberate “act of God” that contributes to His ultimate purpose). Let me put this argument in terms of some specific objections to evolutionary theory advanced by the Design proponents. How do we know that self-replicating organic compounds are fragile and thus unlikely to form and remain stable outside of the organized cellular structures that sustain them in our bodies? We “know” this because we have observed such compounds breaking down when removed from those structures. Design proponents make the assumption in these observed cases that only natural laws are in effect (that is, the Big Juju is not intervening), and that therefore the fragility of these compounds is part of their true nature. Then, since the “known” fragility of these compounds makes it seem unlikely that conditions could ever have been conducive to their formation and sustenance outside of existing cellular structures, they conclude that the only mechanism that adequately explains the fact that these compounds did arise and develop in the absence of cellular structures, is the mechanism of Intelligent Design: the Big Juju stepped in at that moment and created something that was practically impossible by the laws of nature. But how do the Design proponents know that their assumption is accurate? It is possible, as they would have us assume, that the Big Juju intervened billions of years ago to create life in an environment where it could not have happened “naturally.” It is also possible, as they would no doubt prefer I not suggest, that today the Big Juju causes compounds to break down under conditions that would sustain them perfectly if she left them alone. If our universe is a hodgepodge of natural rules and miracles, it is impossible to tell which one we are watching at any moment, because all we observe is the effect. Is it a natural law that makes chemicals break down, or is it an act of the Big Juju? There is no rational middle ground: in each case we must assume either that it is a natural law or a miracle, in part or in whole, because anything else would be a contradiction. The apple falls to earth naturally, or it falls at least in part because the Big Juju pushed it to the earth. Gravity is invisible, and the Big Juju is invisible. The agency of either one is an inference from the observed result, and the inference is based on the assumption on the one hand that the universe is self-contained, and on the other hand that it is not. So in response to the famous challenge by Colin Patterson, taken up by the Design proponents (see for example Thomas Woodward, Doubts about Darwin, p. 110): “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing … that is true?” we may flip a coin and ask why it came up heads or tails. If he says it was a random event, you can point out that he doesn’t know that, because if the Big Juju wanted to make it come out heads, she could have. If he says it was made to come up heads or tails by the Big Juju (whatever name he gives her), you can point out that we therefore know nothing about probability, because the Big Juju is apparently messing with our data. If science is a house, its foundation lies in the assumption that nature is a closed system. Design proponents want you to believe that the master bedroom (evolution) on the top floor is without foundation, and they try to prove it by taking you through the kitchen (biochemistry) and dining room (natural selection) that rest on the same foundation. But if you just look around the kitchen and dining room, you realize that without the foundation, none of what you see could be, and the master bedroom rests on the same foundation. That is not to say that the master bedroom is perfect, that it does not need remodeling. But let them not convince anyone that a room that needs remodeling, as every area of science always does, is therefore not of a basically sound construction. Design proponents are fond of pointing out the blemishes and indicating that there are some in the field who think there are leaks in the roof over that master bedroom; but you don’t fix the roof by undermining the foundation. If the universe is a closed system, it may have taken a half a billion years of random events in conditions that we do not fully understand for the germination of life to occur. If within the first fifty years after we came to a sound understanding of the actual mechanism of genetic inheritance, mutation, and selection, we have not yet reproduced that half-a-billion-year experiment, we should not therefore conclude that it could not have happened by natural processes. In order to continue searching for a possible natural process, we must assume that there is one to be found. Otherwise we are simply chasing our tails. And if the Big Juju is behind it all, it is at least apparent that she wants some of us to go around falsely assuming that the universe is a self-contained place that can be understood, if only through a glass darkly. [1/1/2004: Corrected a typo] Modified: 09/06/2004 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|