We observe a same lack of appreciation of science by voters on the topic of evolution. Let's explore some of these similarities and see what we can learn from them. As the Greenpeace FAQ explains“The scientific debate remains open,” he wrote , “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field”
In the evolution debate we see a very similar pattern. Based on the public's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, creationists reinforce the flawed belief that evolutionary theory is the same as Darwinism and that Darwinism excludes the supernatural and is a materialistic explanation. On Uncommon Descent Denyse O'Leary confuses the issue as followsThose scientists and experts recommended by Luntz have been provided by the Washington think tanks funded by ExxonMobil along with other oil, coal, electric utilities and car companies. This is a similar campaign strategy to that adopted by the Tobacco industry decades earlier. “Doubt is our product” was the famous comment of one tobacco lobbyist to a US Senator. Indeed, you’ll find that some of the key deniers and organizations named on ExxonSecrets were also paid by Big Tobacco to generate doubt about the hazards of smoking. But Exxon says it’s just funding the groups to debate policy issues because it doesn’t like the Kyoto Protocol.
Not only does this misrepresent the scientific position but it also seems to spin the catholic position on evolutionary theory. Of course, the catholic church believes that there is something more than science, however the catholic church also seems to have accepted that from a scientific perspective, evolutionary theory is the best explanation. In The Testimony of Reason (1903), Samuel Louis Phillips writes:Miller was upset because he knows as well as anyone that this and other instances of Cardinalspeak and Popespeak are a polite way of saying that the Catholic Church does not support materialist theories of evolution like Darwinism, a point made in 1996 by John Paul II, but widely misrepresented ever since.
— Denyse O'Leary
So if Darwinism and (evolutionary) science in general presents no scientific threat to religion then why the objections? Historically, the objections involved the concept that humans evolved just like other animals, and the concept that science, by not requiring a supernatural influence, has made such an influence superfluous and worse denies the plausibility of such an influence. In fact, this brings us to the 'teach the controversy' argument which appeals to fairness and yet ignores that there is no controversy. As the school boards in Florida are coming to realize, there are no alternative theories of evolution. Even ID proponents like Phulip 'Father of Intelligent Design' Johnson laments thatIt may be admitted that it is probable species originated from a common ancestor by virtue of a law of the survival of the fittest to live, and the inheritance by its progeny of desirable acquired characteristics. But this law is one of God's laws, and while the aforegoing analogy in pointing to the present mechanism of the eye, or ear, or heart as proof of the direct and immediate handiwork of an intelligent Creator, in the sense of a watch being the work of an intelligent man, is probably not perfect, yet if it was said the laws of evolution which have wrought these changes and improvements were the work of an intelligent Creator, the conclusion would be irrefutable. Granting the assertions of the most extreme evolutionists, it is no impeachment of the power and intelligence of God to admit all vertebrates had a common ancestor in the very remote past, rather it is an evidence of His power to be able to impress on all vegetable and animal life this ability to develop into differences and higher beings and evolve the harmonious and beautiful world we see before us. There is nothing, therefore, in evolution antagonistic to the creation of nature by the all- wise and powerful God in whom we believe. The workman who produces screws by means of machinery he has constructed and put in operation is as much a maker of such screws as he who fashions them severally with his own hands.
Source: Michelangelo D’Agostino, In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley Berkeley Science Review, 10, Spring 2006. The early 21st century 'arguments' against evolutionary theory repeat the history of the 20th century. In the early 20th century, opposition to Darwinism focused on the argument that Darwinism relied on variation but Darwinian theory could not explain the arrival of said variation. Ever since then creationists have continued to repeat this flawed argument. It is true that Darwin did not have a theory of inheritance and genetics. In fact he proposed a flawed concept of Pangenesis of the gemules. However, by the early 20th century, people had rediscovered the work by Mendel. To see how history repeats itself, and worse, how few have learned from history's earlier failures, let's have a look at some of the literature of those days. As early as 1907, Vernon Lyman Kellogg, an American zoologist, wrote in his book "Darwinism Today: a discussion of present-day scientific criticism of the Darwinian selection theories, together with a brief account of the principal other proposed auxiliary and alternative theories of species forming":I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
In other words, while (aspects of) Darwinian theory may (have) be(en) in doubt, the fact of evolution remains unassailed. And yet, even though Darwinian theory was meeting with some strong criticism (much of it was later found to be wrong), Kellogg observes thatDarwinism, then, is not synonymous with organic evolution, nor with the theory of descent (which two phases are used by the biologist practically synonymously). Therefore when one reads of the "death-bed of Darwinism," it is not of the death-bed of organic evolution or of the theory of descent that one is reading. While many reputable biologists to-day strongly doubt the commonly reputed effectiveness of the Darwinian selection factors to explain descent—some, indeed, holding them to be of absolutely no species-forming value—practically no naturalists of position and recognised attainment doubt the theory of descent.' Organic evolution, that is, the descent of species, is looked on by biologists to be as proved a part of their science as gravitation is in the science of physics or chemical affinity in that of chemistry. Doubts of Darwinism are not, then, doubts, of organic evolution. Darwinism might indeed be on its death-bed without shaking in any considerable degree the confidence of biologists and natural philosophers in the theory of descent.
History repeating itself: While many doubt Darwinian theory, there are no scientifically viable alternatives. Kellogg realizes the scientific and theologically impacts of the position of some of these critics in a section titled "intemperate anti-Darwinism":The fair truth is that the Darwinian selection theories, considered with regard to their claimed capacity to be an independently sufficient mechanical explanation of descent, stand to-day seriously discredited in the biological world. On the other hand, it is also fair truth to say that no replacing hypothesis or theory of species-forming has been offered by the opponents of selection which has met with any general or even considerable acceptance by naturalists. Mutations seem to be too few and far between; for orthogenesis we can discover no satisfactory mechanism; and the same is true for the Lamarckian theories of modification by the cumulation, through inheritance, of acquired or ontogenic characters.
Kellogg continues to point out that science had already accepted the fact of common descent (fact of evolution) but that it was Darwin who provided a scientific explanation for the observed data.Says one of them:" "Darwinism now belongs to history, like that other curiosity of our century, the Hegelian philosophy; both are variations on the theme: how one manages to lead a whole generation by the nose." The same writer also speaks of "the softening of the brain of the Darwinians." Another one," in similarly relegating Darwinism to the past, takes much pleasure in explaining that "we [anti-Darwinians] are now standing by the death-bed of Darwinism, and making ready to send the friends of the patient a little money to insure a decent burial of the remains." No less intemperate and indecent is Wolff's T reference to the "episode of Darwinism" and his suggestion that our attitude toward Darwin should be "as if he had never existed." Such absurdity of expression might pass unnoticed in the mouth of a violent non-scientific debater—let us say an indignant theologian of Darwin's own days—but in the mouth of a biologist of recognised achievement, of thorough scientific training and unusually keen mind—for this expression came from just such a man—it can only be referred to as a deplorable example of those things that make the judicious to grieve.
Kellogg then points out that the objections from theology are not with Darwinian theory per se but with the fact of evolutionDarwinism may be defined, then, as a certain rational, causo-mechanical (hence, non-teleologic) explanation of the origin of new species. The Darwinian explanation rests on certain observed facts, and certain inductions from these facts. The observed facts are: (i) the increase by multiplication in geometrical ratio of the individuals in every species, whatever the kind of reproduction which may be peculiar to each species, whether this be simple division, sporulation, budding, parthenogenesis, conjugation and subsequent division, or amphimixis (sexual reproduction) ; (2) the always apparent slight (to greater) variation in form and function existing among all individuals even though of the same generation or brood; and (3) the transmission, with these inevitable slight variations, by the parent to its offspring of a form and physiology essentially like the parental.
In other words, there is the fact of evolution (common descent) and the theory of descent (Darwinism)But on the whole the Darwinian selection theories could be utterly done away with without making any appreciable change in the existing relation between theology and biology. Huxley said this to the theologian Darwinophobes many years ago.
concluding thatBiological science contains much that is proved and certain; but also much that is nothing more than working hypothesis, provisional theory, and anticipatory generalisation. As the proved part is largely of the nature of facts of observation, isolated and unrelated, and the unproved part is composed of the large and sweeping generalisations, the plausible, provisional explanations, such as the various theories of heredity, of the results of struggle, of the development of mutual aid, etc.,
Kellogg continues to provide a 'fair and balanced' overview of the criticisms as well as the Darwinian response to said criticisms and sets out to define Darwinian theory and Evolution.Biology is not yet come to that stage in its development where it can offer many solidly founded generalisations on which other sciences can build. The theory of descent is one such safe great generalisation; but perhaps Darwinism is not another. At least many scholars do not believe that it is.
Kellogg points out that the later theory of Pangenesis of gemules had been falsified and that the theory of sexual selection has received little support. Kellogg reiterates his positionNow all these millions of kinds of animals and plants can have had an origin in some one of but three ways; they have come into existence spontaneously, they have been specially created by some supernatural power, or they have descended one from the other in many-branching series by gradual transformation. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for either of the first two ways; there is much scientific evidence for the last way. There is left for the scientific man, then, solely the last; that is, the method of descent. The theory of descent (with which phrase organic evolution may be practically held as a synonym) is, then, simply the declaration that the various living as well as the now extinct species of— organisms are descended from one another and from common, ancestors. It is the explanation of the origin of species accepted in the science of biology. (The natural question about the first species or the first several, if they appeared simultaneously, will receive attention later; the theory of descent explains the origin of kinds of life, not the origin of life) If such a summary disposal of the theories of spontaneous generation and divine creation is too repugnant to my readers to meet with their toleration, then, as Delage has pertinently said in connection with a similar statement in his great tome on "Heredity," my book and such readers had better immediately part company; we do not speak the same language.
Kellogg presents the reader with an excellent overview of the Darwinian theory of evolution and the fact of common descent, and also shows that much skepticism existed on the arguments based on the recapitulation theory by Muller and Haeckel. Even in its early days Darwinism was attackedI hope now to have pointed out clearly in the preceding paragraphs the real distinction between the theory of descent and the theory of natural selection (Darwinism). The bases, consisting of observed facts and logical reasons, of the selection theory, have been given; perhaps it were well to state briefly the bases, or sources of the scientific evidence for the theory of descent. This evidence is derived from three chief sources; the study of the comparative anatomy and structural homologies of organisms, the study of the prehistoric animals and plants, that is, palaeontology or historical geology, and the study of ontogeny, or embryology, that is, the development of individual animals and plants. The homologies or structural correspondence, in gross and in detail, which the study of animal and plant comparative anatomy reveals to exist in varying degrees among living and extinct kinds of organisms have but one possible scientific explanation: an explanation which serves at once to account for the existence of this correspondence and for its varying degrees. Evidences for This explanation is community of ancestry, the blood-relationship of organisms, the theory of descent. Similarly the facts revealed by the study of palaeontology are explicable wholly satisfactorily by the theory of descent and in no single definitive instance do they contradict it. Finally, the facts and conditions relating to the embryology or ontogeny of animals and plants are similarly wholly in consonance with the theory of descent, although the brilliant positive evidence for the theory which the first revealing of the phenomena of ontogeny led biologists to expect and even to anticipate has confessedly not been forthcoming in that overwhelming measure hoped for. The evidence is excellent and positive and there is much of it, but the proof that man is descended from a fish because he has gill-slits at one period in his individual development is not of the sort to rely on too confidently. The recapitulation theory of Fritz Muller and Haeckel is chiefly conspicuous now as a skeleton on which to hang innumerable exceptions. But the scientific evidence for descent which embryology offers is neither weak nor slight; it is only less overwhelming and all-sufficient than its too sanguine early friends and sponsors attributed to it.
Kellogg points out that the increasing objections come from well established researchers in relevant sciences (compare this to the list of 700+ 'Doubters of Darwinism')Attacks on Darwinism have been made, of course, ever since there was any Darwinism to attack. In those first days (and months and years) after the "Origin of on Darwinism. ' Early attacks species" was published there were the liveliest of times for Darwin and his supporters; or rather chiefly for the supporters. Darwin wisely kept aloof from the debates. But for the first band of followers with the indefatigable, the brilliant, and wholly competent Huxley at its head, there was no lack of opportunities for jousting. The issue was never doubtful; Huxley and his informed and equipped scientific companions against the scientifically ignorant, angry, incautious, and dogmatic Bishop Wilberforces had unfair odds. The victory came swiftly and brilliantly to the Darwinians. At this time there was little distinction made between Darwinism and Evolution. It was really a battle by the theologians against the theory of descent. And the theory of descent was, and is, invulnerable.
These critics generally fall into two categories, a smaller category denies that selection can play any role in speciation while the larger, second category, argues that while Darwinian theory can explain what happens to variation, it cannot explain the origin of such variation. Or alternatively, there are two groups of critics, one group which is mostly interested in undermining Darwinian theory and another group interested in providing alternative explanations. The former group, also known as destructive criticism, is the larger of the two groups as there is a paucity of competing explanations. Kellogg mentions a few competing explanations and how they have to compete against Darwinian theory which was used to explain the large amounts of known facts of its timeIn the last few years, it has, as already mentioned in the preface and introductory chapter of this book, reached such proportions, such strength and extent, as to begin to make itself apparent outside of strictly biological and naturo-philosophical circles. Such older biologists and natural philosophers as von Baer, von Kolliker, Virchow, Nageli, Wigand, and Hartmann, and such others writing in the nineties and in the present century as - von Sachs, Eimer, Delage, Haacke, Kassowitz, Cope, Haberlandt, Henslow, Goette, Wolff, Driesch, Packard, Morgan, Jaeckel, Steinmann, Korschinsky, and de Vries, are examples which show the distinctly ponderable character of the anti-Darwinian ranks. Perhaps these names mean little to the general reader; let me translate them into the professors of zoology, of botany, of palaeontology, and of pathology, in the universities of Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Strassburg, Tubingen, Amsterdam, Columbia University, etc. Now without knowing the man personally, or even through his particular work, the general reader can safely attribute to men of such position a certain amount of scientific training, of proved capacity, and of special acquaintanceship with the subject of their discussion. One does not come to be a professor of biology in Berlin or Paris or Columbia solely by caprice of ministers of education or boards of trustees; one has proved one's competency for the place. To working biologists the names—I have given, of course, only a selection, and one particularly made to show variety of interest (botany, zoology, palaeontology, pathology)—mean even more than the positions. They are mostly associated with recognised scientific attainment and general intellectual capacity.
And even though some evidence seems to support the mutationtheorie of De Vries (evidence later found to be flawed), Kellogg observes how unable the alternative explanations are in explaining the known factsThe situation illustrates admirably the varying worth of a few facts. A few stubborn facts of the wrong- complexion are fatal things for a theory; they are immensely effective offensive weapons. But these same few facts make a pitiable showing when they are called on to support a theory of their own. It was exactly the greatest part of Darwin's greatness, it seems to me, that he launched his theory only after making the most remarkable collection of facts yet gathered together in biological science by any one man. Testing his theory by applying to it successively fact after fact, group after group and category after category of facts, he convinced himself of the theory's consonance with all this vast array of observed biological actuality. Compare the grounding of any of the now offered replacing- theories with the preparation and founding of Darwinism. In 1864 von Kolliker, a great biologist, convinced of the incapacity of natural selection to do the work assigned it by its founders and friends, suggested a theory of the origin of species by considerable leaps; in 1899, Korschinsky,' on the basis of some few personal observations and the compiling" of some others, definitely formulated a theory of species-forming by sudden considerable variations, namely, mutations; in 1901 and 1903 appeared the two volumes of de Vries's "Die Mutationstheorie," in which are revealed the results of long years of careful personal observation, in truly Darwinian manner, directed toward the testing and better grounding of this mutations theorie of species-origin.
So if Intelligent Design provides no alternative to evolutionary theory then why the 'teach the controversy' and 'teach alternative theories of evolution'? Simple, Intelligent Design is on the record as stating that ID can fully envelop evolutionary theory and adds a concept of the supernatural intelligence. Although the latter explains nothing and appears to be totally ad hoc and superfluous, it helps understand that ID is not an scientific alternative to evolutionary theory but rather a theological alternative. The answer seems self evident: By appealing to a sense of fairness, the creationist movement hopes to be able to introduce creationism as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory without having to say so. And while this may appease the confused public, it fails judicial review as shown in detail in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) and more recently in Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688. In true Orwellian fashion, teaching science has become teaching 'dogma' and teaching creationism has become 'academic freedom'. So what about these 'controversies'? Surely there are controversies in evolutionary theory? The answer is straightforward: Yes, there are philosophical and scientific controversies. The former controversy is between those who insist that there exists a supernatural entity who has set in motion, or directed the evolutionary pathways, and those who argue that such a requirement is superfluous. So what about the latter? Are there scientific controversies in evolution and do they provide any credibility to (intelligent design) creationism? The answer again is not surprising: yes there are controversies as to mechanisms and no such controversies do not add credibility to the scientifically vacuous position of intelligent design creationism (IDC). Even though Global Warming is a scientific fact, there are still many unknowns and uncertainties as to the relative impact of the various mechanisms and feedback mechanisms involved. The same applies to evolutionary theory which is a well established fact as explained in the excellent FAQ 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. As the National Academy of Sciences explains in Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008)But however effective de Vries's facts are in proving the possibility of the occurrence of other variations than those fortuitous ones occurring in continuous series from mean to opposite extremes which Darwin recognised as the basis of species-forming, and however effective they are in proving the actual production of three or six or ten species by mutation, and however effective in both these capacities they are as weapons of attack on the dominance of the Darwinian theory of species-making, how really inadequate are they to serve as the basis of a great all-answering theory explaining, in a causo-mechanical way, the facts of descent, or even the primary facts of general species-forming
Perhaps the best conclusion is that the best and only logical approach is to accept the creationist slogan and "Teach the controversy" and how better to do so by "Teaching evolutionary theory" ? The next time you hear poorly informed people object to evolution being the foundation of biology, explain to them why they have been misinformed. For those interested in a good overview of the 'controversies' surrounding Global Warming, see the excellent lecture by Namoi Oreskes titled "The American Denial of Global Warming"The evidence for evolution comes not just from the biological sciences but also from both historical and modern research in anthropology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, and other scientific disciplines, including the behavioral and social sciences. Astrophysics and geology have demonstrated that the Earth is old enough for biological evolution to have resulted in the species seen today. Physics and chemistry have led to dating methods that have established the timing of key evolutionary events. Studies of other species have revealed not only the physical but also the behavioral continuities among species. Anthropology has provided new insights into human origins and the interactions between biology and cultural factors in shaping human behaviors and social systems. As in every active area of science, many questions remain unanswered. Biologists continue to study the evolutionary relationships among organisms, he genetic changes that affect the form and function of organisms, the effects of organisms on Earth’s physical environment, the evolution of intelligence and social behaviors, and many other fascinating subjects. But in each case they are asking specific questions to learn more about how, not whether, evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. They are investigating and further elucidating the mechanisms that produce evolutionary change and the consequences of that change. Biological evolution is part of a compelling historical narrative that scientists have constructed over the last few centuries. The narrative begins with the formation of the universe, the solar system, and the Earth, which resulted in the conditions necessary for life to evolve. While many questions remain about the origins of life on this planet, the appearance of life set in motion a process of biological evolution that continues to this day. Today, new chapters in the narrative are being uncovered through the study of the genetic processes responsible for evolutionary change.
102 Comments
j a higginbotham · 9 February 2008
Why does "Darwinism" get capitalized but not "catholic"? Isn't there a difference between "catholic" and "Catholic"?
Torbach · 9 February 2008
ah but best of all
Frank Luntz; "My own beliefs have changed from when i was tasked with that project."
chapter 3 "Hot politics" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/view/
and i like (or should i say hate?) how similar conspiracy theory strategy is used. Inhofe stated global warming was a hoax cooked up by the weather channel, quite analogous to "cDesign proponentsits" who think "Darwinists" are some stone-cutter clan with clandestine reach and practices (projection of intention ie: the wedge?)
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
PvM,
The historical perspective you provided was quite interesting.
There have been objections against common descent of species.
It seems that the inability of (random) mutations and natural selection to produce the variety of species we observe now, has been the key point all along, in spite of the findings in paleontology and geology. Molecular biology will add to this lot, nowadays.
I am not a biologist by education, but I have noticed that there are disputes among biologists. There are disputes among scientists in all fields. Biology is no exception. Science is neither a dogma, nor a cult.
It is fair to demand teaching the both sides. The controversies include also the use of drugs. Maybe we should teach the other side of using heroin?
Evolutionary theory in biology has been modified during its 150 years of existence, and it is changing in details even now. Might it be the case that it is always changing to accommodate any new observation? There wouldn’t be any way to discredit it. Gravitational theory has not changed that much in over 300 years, and we have known gravitation “always”.
Sometimes it is not quite clear (to a layman) that the advances in biology (and medicine) improving our standard of living are heavily resting on the theory of evolution, and are not merely due to improved equipment.
Regards
Eric
Cedric Katesby · 9 February 2008
Great video. Should be made compulsory viewing for all journalists, radio jockeys and politicians.
Dale Husband · 9 February 2008
Pole Greaser · 9 February 2008
Both Christians and evolutionists see the same evidence but they interpret it differently. Evolutionists see the universe and think it all came about by random chance, Christians see the it as the work of Jesus; this is not the same as "denying" the existence of the universe!
Likewise, both Christians and evolutionists are aware of global warming, but they attribute it to different causes. While evolutionists might attribute this to excessive carbon pollution, Christians believe it is a sign of divine judgment against our increasingly Sodomite world.
Jesus in his love is using global warming to melt the polar icecaps in order to flood the capital of the EU Sodomite state Brussels out of existence, not to mention the rest of the ganja-infested sodomy rampant cities in the lowlands! This is what it will take for the people of Europe to start loving Jesus in return like they once did.
Reed · 9 February 2008
UAB · 9 February 2008
If you keep treating religious folk and other idiots like what they say has value or should be respected, the forces of science/education/reason/basic common sense will constantly be fighting regard actions to prevent and limit the damage their idiocy can do.
Conversational intolerance will not lead to the gulag, many of us practice it daily, with the local crazy, conspiracy theorist, or homeless guy without it leading to a new Holocaust.
Rolf Aalberg · 9 February 2008
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
Reed · 9 February 2008
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
shux2k · 9 February 2008
Two questions. 1. How do people who perpetuate the "human caused" global warming hoax explain the fact that evidence is coming in showing the same type of warming is occurring on Mars?
2. Why do people who are doing such a great job of using real science to defend evolution from the ID hoax make fools of themselves by swallowing the "human caused" warming hoax without doing the real science that's showing solar causes?
David Stanton · 9 February 2008
Eric wrote:
"The question, however, is how to tell apart a theory that has an enormous predictive power from a “theory” that explains everything."
As Reed has correctly pointed out, the theory of evolution cannot account for all possible observations. That is why it is science. There are potential observations that it most certainly could not account for. That is why it is falsifiable. That is why it cannot explain "everything".
Reed also gave several examples of observations that could not be explained by evolutionary theory and correctly pointed out that these have never been observed. So the question is, can you give any examples of something that would falsify the theory of evolution that has been observed?
This is where the frustration of creationists comes in. The theory of evolution has tremendous predictive and explanatory power and no matter what observations are made it seems to be able to accomodate them. If you are just sure that the theory is wrong, I guess that could be really frustrating. However, you cannot mistake your frustration with some inadequacy of the theory. It just might be that the theory is actually correct. That would certainly explain why it can acomodate any observations that are actually made. In any event, since the theory is still falsifiable, that should give you hope that one day someone somewhere will find something to falsify it. After all, that is what real scientists do every day, attempt to falsify theories.
Since real scientists don't worship their theories or believe them to be perfect, falsifying evolution would be just fine. I for one would certainly love to see a theory with even more predictive and explanatory power. After all, that is what would be required to overthrow such a robust theory. Simply finding a few anomalies that evolution cannot explain might call the theory into question, but at this point, I think that you would have to come up with a better explanation for all of the observations if you want to discard the theory of evolution. Of course that means that "GODDIDIT" won't cut it at this point.
FL · 9 February 2008
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
Richard Simons · 9 February 2008
Steve · 9 February 2008
I don't just listen to Al Gore. I also listen to Dr. Steinn Sigurdsson, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Sigurdsson has something to say about the Mars observations, among other things.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/steinn/
Richard Simons · 9 February 2008
Dale Husband · 9 February 2008
David Stanton · 9 February 2008
Eric,
I guess I don't understand your question. You say that you don't trust a theory that can explain everything and I and others explained that the theory of evolution cannot explain everything. You asked for examples of observations that would falsify evolution and we gave you examples. I asked you for examples of observations that do falsify evolution and you have given none. I really don't see the problem here.
Of course white apple blossoms explain exactly nothing. Of course they don't explain pink apple blossoms. How do they explain the seeds in raspberry jam when raspberries appear to have no seeds? Refusing to question a "theory" or simply claiming that it explains everything is not science. The theory of evolution is not like that, it gives detailed explanations which can be tested and falsified. That is why it has changed over time, unlike your example.
Just for the record, there are a number of other observations that would falsify at least some aspects of the modern theory of evolution. These are things that could certainly not easily be accounted for by the current theory:
If a group of complex organisms were discovered on earth that had a drastically different genetic code from that used in all other organism it would be extremely unlikely that they could have arisen by descent with modification. At the very least they could have to represent a separate origin from all other life forms or perhaps a very early offshoot from the tree of life we know. The same holds true for any drastically different ribosome structure, DNA polymerase, cell cycle regulation, or any other ancient mechanism which is conserved in all other life forms.
If a complex animal were found with a fundamentally different type of development, for example lacking hox genes altogether, this would be extremely difficult to explain based on modern evolutionary theory. The same goes for any animal that has a drastically different mitochondrial gene order from closely related animals or a mitochondrial genome with a drastically different complement of genes than other animals. These things would be extremtly unlikely to arise in isolation and they would be very difficult to explain.
If any complex organisms were ever found that did not fit into the tree of life, it would be extremely difficult to explain. All organisms are related to each other and the nested hierarchy of sequence similarities observed can be used to deduce the branching order on the tree of life. If an organism were found that did not fit this general pattern, it would at the very least require a major revision in thinking.
Finding an entire group of life forms based on silicon instead of carbon anywhere on earth would be difficult to explain. So would finding large organisms not composed of smaller cells, or not based on DNA, or not being able to reproduce. All of these things would certainly call everything we think we know into question.
These are just a few of many possible examples. Of course, such trivial things as finding a living dinosaur would mean that certain details of evolutionary theory would have to be revised, but in general something like that could certainly occur given the current theory. Then again, if the earth is only 6,000 years old, or if there is no mechanism of inheritance, then the theory must be completely wrong. Do you think that either of those things is true?
Remember, in order to replace a theory, you have to come up with a better explanation for ALL of the data. Finding a few anomalies is not going to overthrow the most tested theory in the history of science.
Richard Simons · 9 February 2008
Dale,
I agree with you. The way I put it is basically: It has been known for 150 years that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. A century ago it was predicted that doubling the level of atmospheric CO2 would increase global temperatures by several degrees, partly directly and partly through a positive feedback mechanism caused by water vapour. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing rapidly, several lines of evidence showing human activity to be the primary, or even sole, cause of the increase. There is no known negative feedback mechanism remotely large enough to counteract the predicted effect on temperature.
I then ask contrarians where exactly they depart from this. All the arguments about bristlecone pines, urban heat islands and so on are merely nibbling around the edges. So far, they have mainly ignored me although I got one to more or less admit he based his views on wishful thinking.
The fact that, in the past few decades when solar activity has been essentially constant, global temperatures have been rapidly increasing is, to me, the long-expected confirmation that the basic physics is correct.
It is interesting that there seems to be a tendency for people's attitudes to evolution/creation and global warming to be correlated, but not surprising in that in both cases there is one group that has explanations and makes predictions and another group that resolutely makes no predictions.
Stanton · 9 February 2008
Science Avenger · 9 February 2008
JGB · 9 February 2008
It's worth noting that despite FL's best attempts to cherry pick both the scientist and the quote, he did not even present a quote that refuted anything in particular. They were merely a collection of quotes from scientists who believe that they believed their critiques were not addressed. We have no idea what those critiques are. The many facets of climate change are numerous enough that one can disagree with many technical details, but not fundamentally disagree on the notion that it is happening. Wait this does sound suspiciously like history repeating itself.
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
PvM · 9 February 2008
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
Stanton · 9 February 2008
GodThe Designer designed white-blossomed apple trees to be superior than red-blossomed apple trees for an unknown reason that we mere mortals will never be able to comprehend in our lifetimes.David Stanton · 9 February 2008
Eric wrote:
"My example (white apple blossoms) was not an example of a scientific theory. Otherwise it is perfect."
We seem to be in agreement. However, I still find several of your statements puzzling. How is your example perfect if it is not scientific, if what we are discussing are scientific theories? And how does your theory explain the seeds in raspberries? I think raspberries would have seeds whether apple blossome were white or not, how can you explain this?
We also agree that it would take more than the word of a few people to overturn the theory of gravity. At least some controlled experiments would be nice.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 9 February 2008
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
dave · 9 February 2008
Vernon Lyman Kellogg is of course probably more famous for his part in the creation and evolution of Creationism, with his book ''Headquarters nights; a record of conversations and experiences at the headquarters of the German army in France and Belgium'' (The Atlantic Monthly Press, Boston, v. 1917) which told of German officers saying that their militarism was based on Darwinism legitimising "might is right". This inspired Bryant to take up the cause of anti-evolution, which was named "Creationism" in 1929.
Oddly enough, "Darwinismus" was the term used by Ernst Haeckel to promote his Spencerian ideas that owed more to Lamarck than Darwin, with evolution seen as self-willed progress to higher beings. Haeckel rejected natural selection as an explanation, and so rejected the idea that was being called "Darwinism" around 1900. So, Creationism may have arisen to a large extent from a problem of translation and of ambiguous terms.
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
shux2k · 9 February 2008
Reed · 9 February 2008
tiredofthesos · 9 February 2008
There only controversy on this issue regards whether the anti-evolutionist is honestly ignorant, wantonly ignorant, or a damned and purebreed liar.
(Since I am de-cloaking for the moment, I offer troll FL, whom I must now tiresomely scroll past, a proper f.u.)
shux2k · 9 February 2008
Raspberries do have seeds (approx 100 in each berry) but they generally won't germinate until they go through a process called scarification which is a nice way of saying pooped through a bird. Quite a nice evolutionary touch for a biennial plant with perennial roots.
Reed · 9 February 2008
386sx · 9 February 2008
Not only does this misrepresent the scientific position but it also seems to spin the catholic position on evolutionary theory.
You seemingly say "seems" because nobody really knows what the hell the pope was talking about. Back in the day the popes used to speak their minds about such matters. But nowadays they can't because the new popes know the old popes look like morons.
melatonin · 9 February 2008
@shux2k
1. There is evidence that the warming on mars is a result of dust storms altering the albedo of the planet.
2. That article is more from the denialist crapmill. Tapping himself has made a comment about it (link on deltoid). In most of these recent articles about Tapping, they contain the obvious misleading claim about Sami Solanki's work (Max Plank comment) - his work shows that solar activity has not been a prime influence on warming for the last three decades. However, this one appears to have decided to use the cooling since 1998 canard instead (tamino of the open mind blog has taken this apart in detail).
3. For ice-age cycles we would actually expect a lag. CO2 generally doesn't just magically appear from nowhere. It would be a result of a prior cause. In this case, warming from orbital variation induces CO2 release, which then enhances the initial warming. However, that doesn't mean that releasing CO2 alone can't cause warming. It is a both an effect of warming, and also affects warming. Events like the PETM show what large rapid releases of GHGs can do.
And the Oreskes talk was great stuff.
Moses · 9 February 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 9 February 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 9 February 2008
"So in that regard evolution can’t swallow much."
Rather, I should say that evolution doesn't differ from other theories in that regard.
And I suspect that one can argue whether evolution is agile and/or capable and/or robust when it allows predictions of a complicated process. Probably all three.
Eric Finn · 9 February 2008
Stanton · 9 February 2008
Reed · 10 February 2008
386sx · 10 February 2008
You seemingly say “seems” because nobody really knows what the hell the pope was talking about. Back in the day the popes used to speak their minds about such matters. But nowadays they can’t because the new popes know the old popes look like morons.
Yes, this is essentially correct. The popes nowadays have to speak vaguely and ambiguously when they are talking about things that are not invisible, so that nobody understands what the hell they are talking about. That way nobody can say they are morons.
Rolf Aalberg · 10 February 2008
With respect to the global warming issue I think there are just two things we need consider:
1. Is the planet getting warmer? (In the news yesterday was a report that the arctic ice sheet had shrunk more than expected last summer. It is a positive feedback situation, as more water is becoming exposed more heat will be absorbed. Ten years from now the ice sheet may disappear entirely during the arctic summer.)
2. If 1. is true, could and should we do anything about it?
I presume FL and cohorts will vote no on both counts.
ben · 10 February 2008
Rapture's coming anyway, so who cares what happens to the planet, right?
Fools.
Paul Burnett · 10 February 2008
David Stanton · 10 February 2008
Eric wrote:
My concern is not really a scientific one, but one related to the public image. “If contradicting evidence should emerge, the evilutionists are sure to invent yet another mechanism to save their sacred theory”.
Well if contradicting evidence should emerge, the creationists are sure to simply ignore it in order to preserve their sacred myth.
As Stanton and Reed so eloquently pointed out, scientific theories change and evolve, that is the power of science. Religious pronouncements and myths don't tend to change, that's why creationists never do any real research or read any scientific literature. When you dilligently search for the truth you must be prepared to change your mind based on new evidence. When you proclaim that you already know the truth, new evidence can only make you look foolish. Claiming that this openness somehow makes a scientific theory less convincing is hypocritical in the extreme.
Richard Simons · 10 February 2008
SLC · 10 February 2008
Re Stanton
The situation relative to the motion of Mercury is as follows. The motion of Mercury can be described as having two components.
1. Mercury revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit with the sun at one of the foci.
2. The orbit itself precesses around the sun based focus.
Computations of the effects of the other planets on Mercurys' orbit, using perturbation theory, were believed to account for the observed orbital precession rate. However, as observations became more precise in the 19th century, it became apparent that the other planetary perturbations could not fully account for the precession rate, falling short by some 43 seconds of arc per century. Relativistic effects as computed from the General Theory of Relativity were shown to account for the observed 43 s/a/c deviation. For some 50 years, this was the sole observation supporting the theory.
For virtually all problems in celestial mechanics, relativistic effects can be treated as a perturbation on the Newtonian predictions so that it is not entirely accurate to state that Newtonian physics has been replaced by relativistic physics. For practical purposes, it is more accurate to state that relativistic physics provides a correction to the predictions of Newtonian physics.
Pvm · 10 February 2008
Hoosier X · 10 February 2008
Are there, like, any nitwit conservative climate-change deniers who can, like, argue their point without making a gratuitous and irrelevant dig at Al Gore?
I mean, I look at some of THEIR heroes, like Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter and those lying dipshits at the Discovery Institute and Ronald Reagan. And I'm trying to figure out where they get the damn gall to think they can just say "The only thing supporting climate change is Al Gore! AL GORE! That's all I need to say! Al Gore! I say Al Gore and it means you're WRONG! U R PWNED, LIBERALS!" and then they throw out a bunch of hackery from the Canada Free Press that they clearly don't understand that well because they just characterize it as "proof" that climate change (which they denied for decades) isn't anthropegenic without describing how the study proves anything. If the summary on NewMax says "the liberals are wrong!" then that's proof enough for the average conservative.
Look around you, at the environment, at the effect of man, industry, unregulated enterprise, pollution. Can you really say that the footprint of man is so benign, so barely noticeable, that there is just NO WAY that climate change could be caused by man?
I'll bet you can find a link on Rush's Web site that will lead you right to a study funded by the oil companies that proves that because it was cold last winter, there is no climate change. (Just make sure it's not another hoax study cooked up to make conservatives look foolish. The "real" studies do that well enough.)
fred douglass · 10 February 2008
I just finished reading an article in my local (Cape Cod, Mass.) paper by Gregory Katz. It points out a truly lamentable new trend in England. When Richard Dawkins visits English secondary schools to discuss the merits of evolutionary theory, he often is confronted by students' questions which seem to come directly from creationist tracts-----especially those newly imported from American groups such as Ken Ham's "Answers in Genesis" group.
Although this anachronistic viewpoint is strong in America, it is just beginning a resurgence in England,and that is alarming. As a teacher (now retired) when I ran into a small (2 or 3 students per class) creationist contingents, I was able to circumvent any real problems. I did this by displaying a chronological chart on the blackboard which showed that religion was a "prescientific explanatory scheme" which evolved from polytheistic "nature gods" all the way to monotheistic human-image god(s). Then, I would explain, very carefully, how science grew to gradually displace blind faith and dogma. Of course, I always careful to leave the choice of competing theories up to the students. I did fortify my Darwinian position by citing all the evidence, especially the data which pointed to the vastness of geological time and the irrefutable logic of natural selection.
Whenever i was confronted by strident student/parental opposition, I simply attributed this stridency to desperation. Psychologically, it seemed to make sense----when confronted by the fact that yours is a losing argument, there often is a moment of anger or disappointment. Depending on your intelligence and maturity, , you ultimately file it away as a lesson learned.In people of lower intellect and maturity, however, problems arise and more often than not, entrenchment and anger follow.
In other classes, explaining Marxism and socialism, and especially modern American liberalism I would point out the evidence that Leftism was in essence, the "politics of envy". I would then draw on the board the diagram (which I termed "ageless and indelible")----the socioeconomic pyramid. I even went as far as to contrast the Industrialized European model (with a huge lower class) and the American improvement (showing a large middle class). I even threw in a little Statue of Liberty as a "result". Ha-ha. THEN I hit the hard part. I pointed out that the socio-economic pyramid was based on the genetics of inherited intelligence, drive, personality, etc. Tough stuff. Then the "genius" of socialists (Democrats and liberals), who hitched hitched their elective destinies to the huge base of the pyramid. Then I concluded that such a maneuver, especially when brought to revolutionary heights, was fraught with peril. I wrapped it all up with a VERY challenging question, i.e. "Which component, or strata of the IQ/wealth pyramid cleaves to religion and champions heroes who promise to "even out the playing field"?
No student left my class not understanding Thomas Henry Huxley's Fabian Socialism. As you know, he felt that humankind was the only species which threw up barricades of social and political institutions to thwart the ravages of Nature (and natural selection).
I view religious zealots the same way Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do: as a potential threat to logic, objectivism and freedom.
Good luck (to all of us),
Fred Douglass
trrll · 10 February 2008
As with evolution deniers, global warming deniers repeat the same false claims over and over. After a while, one gets sick of pointing out yet again (for example) that (a) it is questionable whether Mars is actually experiencing global warming and (b) if it is, it has no correlation with solar activity.
For evolution, most of us are familiar with the TalkOrigins Archive as a useful compendium debunking classic evolution denialist canards. For global warming denial, two similarly useful sources are skeptical science and Gristmill.
Chiefley · 10 February 2008
Eric wrote:
“The question, however, is how to tell apart a theory that has an enormous predictive power from a “theory” that explains everything.”
Eric,
A way to tell the difference is that scientific theories with enormous predictive powers are highly falsifiable. In fact, the falsifiability of a theory is directly related to its predictive power.
Another way to look at it is that the more falsifiable a theory is, the more it forbids. For example, the theory of Universal Gravitation is highly falsifiable because it forbids any two masses in the universe from having a different gravitational force on each other than that which is stated in the theory. Since it makes a precise statement about what to expect from every mass in the universe, it forbids any masses in the universe from behaving differently.
Evolution is highly falsifiable because it forbids any two organisms whether living or dead from not being related by a common ancestor. All of the competing explanations for the diversity of life on the planet forbid exactly nothing, or if they do, there is no evidence that anything they forbid is true.
For example, what does Creationism forbid when it comes to the diversity of life on the planet. If you go strictly by what you find in Genesis, you find no statements that forbid descent with modification. Genesis claims that certain species were created by God at some time in the past. It makes no claims about those species being immutable.
Intelligent Design is another good example. What does Intelligent Design forbid? I can't think of anything that Intelligent Design forbids, which is ironic because it is not anything but negative statements about Evolution.
Try if you will to create a definition of Intelligent Design that forbids something. The most forbidding version I have seen goes something like this:
"Intelligent Design is a theory that states that some features of life and the universe are too complex to have been formed through natural processes."
Now I ask you, what does that forbid? Since it only says 'some features' there is no way to make a prediction about a particular set of features. Since it makes no claim about exactly which features are not formable by natural processes, you cannot devise an experiment to falsify it.
If you rewrite the theory to state: "Intelligent Design is a theory that states that some features of life and the universe were designed by an intelligent agent.", you still have the same problem. Applying this theory to any biological features and you have a theory that truly explains everything because it truly explains nothing.
Finally, if you make the theory stronger such as: "Intelligent Design is a theory that states that all organisms whether living or dead were designed by an intelligent agent", you have something that is very falsifiable and therefore very forbidding. But now the problem is that not only is it easily falsifiable, it is easily falsified.
Stanton · 10 February 2008
I thought the only things that Intelligent Design "theory" forbids are 1) scientific research (if any research at all) and 2) making explanations with, about, or deviating from "
GODDESIGNERDIDIT"Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 10 February 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 10 February 2008
@ SLC:
Regarding GR I believe the gravitational deflection of light was also taken as an early test of the theory, as AFAIK other gravitational theories predicted different deflections.
The equivalence principle, equating gravitational and inertial mass for all accelerations, should also have falsified some contenders but I'm less certain about its impact and how much observation was supporting it. (But it should at the very least have been one of those gedanken experiments that "feels right", as it explained a previous mystery.)
One could possibly also include cosmological expansion as a natural prediction of GR, as I understand GR universes are naturally either expanding or collapsing, and only marginally stable (i.e. not, since any disturbance would lead to expansion or collapse). But I don't think it was ever considered a strong test.
Stanton · 10 February 2008
ravilyn sanders · 10 February 2008
Stanton · 10 February 2008
Pvm · 11 February 2008
For some good overviews of Mars and 'global warming' see Reaclimate
However science is never going to stop global warming deniers, just like those who deny evolution or those who deny(ied) that smoking causes cancer.
In all these cases the deniers have to point to 'controversies' to instill doubt about an incredible strong dataset supporting the theory.
As with evolution, there is little doubt that global warming is happening. The 'controversies' lie in the relative importances of the mechanisms involved. While the sun is a major contributor to the energy balance of our planet, its variations are insufficient to explain the observed trend.
What fascinates me is how disregard of science is often so commonly found amongst certain creationists and the parallels between evolution, global warming and intelligent design creationism are stunning, to the extent that some ID proponents seem to be denying both. Denial of common sense and data seems to extend amongst some ID proponents when it comes to HIV as well.
Weird...
David B. · 11 February 2008
As Pvm notes, much the same methods crop up in groups disputing the link between HIV and AIDS, but there is one more - very pertinent - example to consider.
When a link between ozone depletion and the production and release of CFCs was first suggested, the work was strongly criticized, not least by the manufacturers of CFCs. The attacks continued even as the experimental and observational evidence mounted, with even popular TV science shows weighing in on the debate, the BBC's [i]Tomorrow's World[/i] program reported featuring an industry spokesperson on one programme who said that Ozone is replenished by natural processes in the upper atmosphere (true) and that the total annual production of ozone was too small to affect the global ozone levels (false, because the longevity of CFCs in the atmosphere is so high, c.f. CO2).
The discovery of the 'ozone hole' in 1985 surprised everyone, including the scientists, and prompted Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (herself a chemist) to set up the British Meteorological Office's Hadley Centre to study climate change.
In her speech at the 2nd. World Climate Conference (1990), Mrs. Thatcher said, "[T]he need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level. The IPCC tells us that we can't repair the effects of past behaviour on our atmosphere as quickly and as easily as we might cleanse a stream or river. It will take, for example, until the second half of the next century, until the old age of my grandson, to repair the damage to the ozone layer above the Antarctic. And some of the gases we are adding to the global heat trap will endure in the Earth's atmosphere for just as long. [...] We are all aware of the immense challenge. The enormity of the task is not a matter for pessimism. The problems which science has created, science can solve, provided we heed its lessons. Moreover, we have already established a structure of international co-operation on the environment to deal with ozone depletion, as some speakers have already mentioned. For the first time ever, rich and poor nations alike set out together to save our planet from a serious danger, and this painstaking work culminated in the historic agreement reached in London this year. That agreement is a real beacon of hope for the future."
It took a decade of painstaking research and the shocking discovery of just how far the damage had progressed to spur the world into tackling ozone depletion, and many of the world's climate study programmes were specifically created so that we would not be caught so wrong-footed by global warming. Unfortunately, it seems that without the shock factor, there isn't the will to do.
David B. · 11 February 2008
Perhaps the most hilarious accusation levelled against climate scientists is that they are only pushing the AGW agenda to ensure a steady stream of money comes their way.
The most obvious objection to this is as a public sector scientist, my wife could have earned three times as much producing tricked-out Excel spreadsheets for marketing managers (as I did for a year) as she received for doing climatology.
A subtler objection is that AGW is the very last thing climatologists would peddle if all they were interested in was funding. That the world's climate is changing is a fact, as is that this change will bring with it a number of varied challenges to the countries of the world. If anthropogenic in origin, there is always a chance that we can directly ameliorate the worst effects through one or more programmes aimed at combating global warming. But if global warming were predominantly non-anthropogenic, then opposing the change is no longer an option and our efforts would be better spent predicting and mitigating its effects.
Hence it is non-AGW that would garner climatologists the most funding.
SteveF · 11 February 2008
With regards to funding, there are a couple of issues here. The first is that researching global warming is not getting scientists rich. I've heard a few sceptics suggest as much and it's bollocks. The second relates to funding and here there is possibly more of a case. I've bumped up the global warming related aspect of a study in grant applications; I can't be sure this has gotten me the money, but I doubt it does any harm. I know a lot of people who have done similar things.
SLC · 11 February 2008
Re Torbjörn Larsson
I think it would be more accurate to state that the terrestrial light deflection experiments were consistent with General Relativity. However, due to the rather large error bars in the measurements, these experiments were insufficient to distinguish between Einsteins theory and the Brans-Dicke theory. This was remedied in the 1970s when equivalent experiments were performed using the early Mars explorers which reduced the error bars sufficiently to rule out the latter theory.
SLC · 11 February 2008
It is rather interesting to point out that many deniers are multiple deniers. As a for instance, global warming denier Prof. Fred Singer has, in the past, also denied the relationship between cigarette, smoking and lung cancer, and ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere.
Frank B · 11 February 2008
The Panda's Thumb is a place to talk about science vs. pseudoscience In an earlier post, Fred Douglas wrote about supporting science in his British classroom. What I find very alarming is that he misuses science to attack liberalism in his classroom. The difference between liberals and conservatives is mainly philosophical. If Fred feels that science disproves liberal opinions, I beg to differ.
There is a British science fiction writer named David Weber who is best known for the "Honor Herrington" series. He is a good story teller, but his books were hard to get through because of rants against liberals that were so illogical. Weber must be very uninformed of human history, and Fred must be similarly uninformed. Science should be neutral toward religion, philosophy, and politics.
David B. Benson · 11 February 2008
Frank B --- I am rather sure that David Weber is American. Anyway, the whole 'Honor Harrington' series is a parody, one which I find quite well done.
It is all fiction, not fact, not science...
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 11 February 2008
@ SLC:
Sounds like a medical experiment in reverse - 'the experiment was a failure but the observation lives!' :-P
Yes, the deflection measurements seems to have a complicated history, with errors involved et cetera. I haven't studied the history behind Brans-Dicke theory, but I believe it is correct to say it was not among the theories that were tested at the time the original deflection experiments were performed.
Newton gravity was, however, and if memory serves it will contribute to half of the deflection for photons from a classic calculation on the momentum change. (But I haven't studied General Relativity either...)
This is only arguable if one has measured a deflection to test on of course, because the photon was a rather fresh concept at the time. I'm sure the real history was more complex.
David B. Benson · 11 February 2008
Wikipedia offers a descent summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Bill Gascoyne · 11 February 2008
Frank B · 11 February 2008
I stand corrected on Weber's background. I knew he was currently living on the east coast. Since his political senarios were all in a parlamentary democracy, and his rants made no sence to me, I assumed he had some British connection. If it was parody, it went over my head and the heads of others I know. But my point is that a science teacher needs to know what is fact and what is opinion.
David B. Benson · 11 February 2008
David B. Benson · 11 February 2008
Stuart Weinstein · 11 February 2008
"The situation relative to the motion of Mercury is as follows. The motion of Mercury can be described as having two components.
1. Mercury revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit with the sun at one of the foci.
2. The orbit itself precesses around the sun based focus.
Computations of the effects of the other planets on Mercurys’ orbit, using perturbation theory, were believed to account for the observed orbital precession rate. However, as observations became more precise in the 19th century, it became apparent that the other planetary perturbations could not fully account for the precession rate, falling short by some 43 seconds of arc per century. Relativistic effects as computed from the General Theory of Relativity were shown to account for the observed 43 s/a/c deviation. For some 50 years, this was the sole observation supporting the theory."
Not entirely true, the Eddington expedition also provided some evidence based on the change
of apparent positions of stars near the sun during a solar eclipse. However, while it was clear
Newton was wrong, the results were too imprecise to coronate GR. None the less, Eddington's results
were carried by papers worldwide and Einstein became a household name.
David B. Benson · 11 February 2008
Wikipedia has a page of testing Einstein's GR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
FL · 11 February 2008
For many people, their first real taste of the global warming debate comes via viewing Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth or by reading the book version. Both are very well-produced (hence the Oscar and the Nobel prize) and designed to turn a person into a global-warming true-believer overnight.
What I want to offer here, is a link to the very best response (literally point by point, and straight to the point) to Gore's movie and book.
Marlo Lewis's CEI response, of course.
If you know of someone who IS attempting to sincerely check out both sides of the story, (say for the sake of writing a school paper, or merely to inform himself or herself of the issues)
then show them this link or print it off (every page!) and hand it to them so they can read it alongside Gore's book, point for point, page for page.
Makes for an excellent, informative comparison of viewpoints!
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5820.pdf
FL
David B. Benson · 11 February 2008
The climate science is essentially settled: the additional carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by burning fossil carbon is the source of the current warming, and it will become worse in the future. There are many excellent resources for this on
http://www.realclimate.org/
wherein all of the denialist or other alternative ideas have been repeatedly shown not to be in accord with the data and the known science.
There are better books than Gore's. I recommend The Discovery of Global Warming, available in paperback and also on an AIP web site.
There is no need to look at web pages claiming the equivalent of The Earth is Flat!
Frank B · 11 February 2008
David Benson, I appreciate your post, and I realize we are talking about slightly different things. I agree that Weber is an excellent story teller, and I was spellbound reading the series, just as I was with Hornblower when I was young. I wouldn't call Weber's works a parody of SC Forester, but rather 'in the tradition of'. Honor is a future Hornblower. My complaint can be characterized this way, Forester did not incorporate into his stories stark demonizations of British political parties and their leaders. I am glad you were not distracted by those "rants", but I was. That's all. Carry On.
SLC · 12 February 2008
Re Stuart Weinstein
See Mr. Larssons' comment and my response.
Re Torbjörn Larsson
Although a discussion of the Brans/Dicke theory is far off topic here, it may of some interest, even to paleontologists as it has echoes in the Alvarez K/T asteroid collision controversy, although the outcome was different.
In the mid 1960s, Prof. Robert Dicke of Princeton, Un. made a Doppler radar observation of the Sun which seemed to indicate that its interior was rotating some 10 time faster then its atmosphere. If this were true, it would imply that the interior of the Sun was quite oblate which would generate a considerable gravitational quadrapole moment. Such a quadrapole moment would account for some 3 s/a/c in the precession rate of the planet Mercury, thus negating the apparent agreement of the Theory of General Relativity with the observed value. Prof. Dicke proposed an alternate theory, the details of which are beyond the scope of this web site, which accounted for the apparent 3 s/a/c discrepancy. I was present at an invited presentation Prof. Dicke made to the APS which, I must say, quite impressed the audience, including the astronomy professors at my university.
However, the Brans/Dicke theory also made a prediction as to the amount of deflection of light by the sun during a total eclipse which was somewhat smaller then that predicted by GR. Unfortunately, at the time, as I previously stated, these observations were not sufficiently accurate to distinguish between the two theories. Subsequently, there was an experiment performed, utilizing one of the Mars Explorer expeditions which essentially measured the time delay of a signal sent to the Explorer and then returned. The Brans Dicke theory predicts a smaller value for this time delay then does GR. This experiment results in much greater accuracy then the light deflection observations and showed that the GR prediction was in statistical agreement with the time delay observation and the Brans/Dicke theory was not in statistical agreement at the 95% confidence level. Subsequent experiments have pushed the confidence level well beyond 95%.
shux2k · 12 February 2008
guthrie · 12 February 2008
Actually, Shux2k, the evidence is actually that we are responsible for most of the warming in the 20th century. You don't like that, I can see, but the evidence is against you.
Insulting us doesn't help your case.
David B. Benson · 12 February 2008
David B. Benson · 12 February 2008
SLC --- Thank you. I found that informative.
It is also a good example of how science works with the evidence to disqualify various hypotheses.
ID, on the other hand...
Moses · 12 February 2008
Moses · 12 February 2008
harold · 12 February 2008
FL and SchmucksXXXL (or whatever) -
Since this is a wide-ranging discussion, can you each provide a brief answer to this question -
What causes AIDS?
I'm just curious to see what you say.
Stanton · 12 February 2008
harold · 13 February 2008
A comment on denial of human-caused climate change, here at the dead end of the thread...
Even if the evidence were less devastating, the denialist view is flawed at a logical level.
Given the potential devastating effects of rapid climate change, the expected value of making moderate behavioral changes now is far better than the expected value of ignoring the situation.
Several years ago, one could have made a strained case that "we should behave as if human-caused climate change is happening, but it might not really be happening". Even that case is hard to make today.
It has NEVER been rational to argue that we should ignore even the possibility of human-caused climate change.
Stephen Wells · 14 February 2008
Climate-change deniers are effectively arguing that if I insulate my house, and don't turn down the heating, my house will still not get any warmer. As a physicist I find that implausible.
Stanton · 14 February 2008
David B. Benson · 15 February 2008
Rick (Vectorpedia) · 16 February 2008
Thanks for the thought provoking article
PvM · 17 February 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 25 March 2008
FWIW, catching up on old threads:
SLC, thank you, it was informative.