Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
…and if Jesus were alive today he'd be locked up in an insane asylum, along with all his cohorts.
Walter Kerney 1961 (Excerpt from The Messianic Travesty)
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Another critic who hasn't read the book | Main | I should get myself a geiger counter »
Category: Politics
Posted on: January 8, 2008 9:35 AM, by PZ Myers
For Mike Huckabee.
Collins is a good choice for any candidate who thinks sucking up to a religious constituency is more important than getting the best advice about science. For anyone who actually wants advice about science, I recommend RPM.
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
Well, you just saved me the trouble of writing a post.
The Science Adviser's job is to explain science. Generating platitudes is the duty of the politician.
(I should confess that two of us have already endorsed Phil Plait for the job, but he doesn't want it.)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 8, 2008 9:52 AM
Watch out! That's a perfect opportunity for a quote mine!
Fortunately, your opinion is worth less than dirt to the people who might want to make use of it.
Posted by: Karen | January 8, 2008 9:53 AM
Can't someone please appoint a Science Advisor for Matt Nisbet.
Posted by: Sigmund | January 8, 2008 10:33 AM
I strongly agree with RPM that Collins would not make a good science advisor, however, I think he's wrong to call the man ignorant of evolutionary theory. Collins may not be fully appreciative of its implications for and prematurely discounts it as insufficient in explaining human behavior, but I see the man smitten with his god of the gaps more than plagued by simple ignorance.
Part of me wants to be wrong on this; I really hate defending Geneticists for Jesus.
Posted by: caynazzo | January 8, 2008 10:46 AM
Religion itself has to be vague platitudes and untestable, insignificant speculations which are mostly about attitude. The minute you start to get serious and try to pin down what it's saying about what the supernatural is, how it works, and where science can detect it, it automatically "turns" into the paranormal, and you're doing pseudoscience.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | January 8, 2008 11:19 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | January 8, 2008 11:19 AM
If they really must have a Christian for science advisor, I don't think I would mind if it was Ken Miller, I think he did a good job at Dover. (Unless someone has some dissenting view I don't know about) That said, if there is an election, my vote goes to Tyson.
Posted by: Jan Chan | January 8, 2008 11:26 AM
Wait, wait - you mean, it's okay for Collins to head the HGP, to be director of the NHGRI, and to direct the research of hundreds of scientists and millions of research dollars with plenty of skill and vision, but he's not up to scratch to being a science advisor to the president? He's relegated to the same pile as Mike Huckabee because he has some religious beliefs? Provide me any evidence that Collins' beliefs have ever gotten in the way of his (considerable) scientific work. Otherwise you guys are just empty-headed bigots.
Posted by: saurabh | January 8, 2008 11:33 AM
saurabh, I have no problem with Collins as a scientist or administrator. The objection is to Matt Nisbets suggestion that Collins particular religious belief should be a strong factor in him getting the job. I would prefer to appoint someone to a scientific post on the basis of their scientific ability alone rather than their superstitious notions.
Posted by: Sigmund | January 8, 2008 11:40 AM
Oh, I disagree with PZ and think Collins would make a fine science advisor to the president. Better than most, in fact, especially if it's Huckabee. As long Collins stays away from expressing his scientific view of "where we got morals" -- in other words, unless he'd be willing to admit he's been speculating outside his field and concede that matter to specialists in the area.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | January 8, 2008 11:42 AM
At the risk of being an empty-headed bigot, I should emphasize that in my view, the important qualification for a Science Advisor is not their ability to do research or to direct others in doing research, but rather their ability to explain science clearly, represent controversies accurately and learn about fields in which they were not formally trained. You don't have to be doing research right now to have those skills, nor do you need an impressive backlog of project leadership, although of course you won't have a deep enough understanding of science if all your knowledge about it comes from the magazines.
So, when saurabh asks,
My answer is "No." As discussed in the comment thread over here, I'd support a fellow like David Brin, even though I know he has "some religious beliefs", since he's impressed me enough with the qualities I mentioned above. Lots of other people have done so as well, of course, so the candidate pool would be pretty big.
I don't give a damn what a Science Advisor does on whatever day of the week he or she declares to be the Sabbath. However, I reserve the right to worry when, for any reason, a candidate for that position doesn't live up to the standards which I believe the job requires. Perhaps they're a closet racist, and therefore prone to distorting the science of human genetics; or, alternatively, maybe they're in the pocket of a petroleum company. I'd say that a deist, an agnostic or a genuinely liberal theist who respects Jefferson's Wall would be a better choice than an atheist who's being paid off by Big Oil.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 8, 2008 11:55 AM
By the way, HR 888 (the official endorsement of creationism) is apparently coming up for a vote:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/8/65957/25345/519/432725
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | January 8, 2008 12:08 PM
I regret my 'empty-headed bigot' remark, that was a bit strong.
That is all.
Posted by: saurabh | January 8, 2008 12:22 PM
saurabh--
Francis Collins sucks compared to Craig Venter, for the human genome and in subsequent pursuits.
Venter did it faster and with less $$, and is currently doing more and more useful research along those same lines (ie the microbiome project, artificial life, etc).
OH BUT WAIT! Venter is an atheist-- guess hes disqualified from Nisbets list.
Posted by: ERV | January 8, 2008 1:13 PM
I endorse Brian Switek as Presidential Science Blogging Advisor.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 8, 2008 1:44 PM
Collins would probably be a huge improvement on whoever Huckabee would actually choose.
Posted by: poke | January 8, 2008 2:53 PM
A headless animated scarecrow that supported teaching evolution in the schools would probably be a huge improvement on whoever Huckabee would actually choose.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 8, 2008 3:07 PM
Poke @ # 16, Wouldn't Huckabilly likely pick that omniscient Jehova god thing as his science advisor?
Posted by: Richard Harris | January 8, 2008 3:13 PM
From Wikipedia: My comments in [brackets - SG]
BioLogos [Collins' name for his philosophy - SG] rests on the following premises: (1) The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago, [no argument from me - SG] (2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life, [I disagree, and think that life has adapted to the conditions of the universe - SG] (3) While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time, [OK - SG] (4) Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required, [OK here, too - SG] (5) Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes, [OK] (6) But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history. [muddy, but not pejorative - SG]
Sounds OK to me.
SG
Posted by: Science Goddess | January 8, 2008 3:52 PM
Mike Huckabee would probably pardon Kent Hovind so he could have the post. In that case, Collins would be an improvement.
Posted by: Skwee | January 8, 2008 4:16 PM
SG,
What Collins is saying is that the existence of stars and galaxies (and hence heavy elements and rocky planets) depends on various constants having constrained values. If you disagree, and assume life adapted to the universe--by which I take it you mean life would have adapted to any universe (the puddle analogy), then we can test this. Because most of the universe looks like what all of it might have looked like without the fine tuning--namely diffuse hydrogen and helium. (Other parts of it resemble another possible outcome without the fine tuning, neutron stars.) If life simply adapts to the universe--then intergalactic space should be teeming with life (and so should neutron stars). If not, the Collins is right and the universe appears to be fine tuned for life--that is, life requires galaxies and stars--and stars that create heavy elements and blast them into space. So do you in fact believe that intergalactic space and neutron stars are supporting life?
Posted by: heddle | January 8, 2008 4:17 PM
You use the word "should" in a rather cavalier manner, Mr. H., in your effort to construct a straw version of what SG wrote. Show me where she wrote that life would necessarily adapt to the conditions of ANY universe.
The cracks between the tiles in my shower enclosure are not fine-tuned for the purpose of allowing mildew to thrive - and yet, there it is.
Try accepting the possibility that this all just is, and that life, where it can arise, does arise.
Posted by: Kseniya | January 8, 2008 4:30 PM
Or for rocks. (Lithic Principle.)
Or for black holes...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 8, 2008 4:33 PM
How do you know? :-)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 8, 2008 4:34 PM
Science Goddess quoted Wikipedia describing Collins thusly:
Um, no. This is at worst completely wrong and at best unsupported by current evidence.
Again, no. Collins treats moral behavior in human beings the same way that Michael Behe treats the bacterial flagellum. Furthermore, it's a wonderful example of astonishing Christian arrogance: all the thousands of mythic heroes, animal spirits, demigods, goddesses and gods worshiped by human beings for tens of thousands of years are collapsed into a single "God". What about the millions of people who were satisfied to worship Isis, or who mourned to Enlil when the city of Ur fell? For a religious man, Collins appears stupefyingly unconcerned with the spiritual diversity of humankind.
The moment he stops talking about genetics and says anything about cosmology, physics or history, Collins sounds like a buffoon.
(Yes, the quoted passages come from Wikipedia, but from my reading of Collins' own statements, I'd say that they are accurate representations of his views.)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 8, 2008 4:35 PM
Oh twaddle, so silly, so stupid.
You can't even make that argument for Earth, idiot, since not all forms of life are equally adaptive in different environments.
For example, insects, one of the most ubiquitous classes of life, are scarcely found in Antarctica or the oceans.
Would you say that Tahiti is thus fine-tuned for insects and Antarctica is not?
Given that evidence, is it so hard to suppose that certain regions of the universe never exhibited the conditions to form life, nor are suitable for colonisation by life that formed elsewhere?
Dipshit. Pull your head out of your ass and smell the evidence around you before you run off to embrace every retarded idea that allows you to cling so tenaciously to your ill-founded faith.
Fuck me, but you're dumb.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 8, 2008 4:35 PM
And, in fact, I'm not sure I should give credit to Collins for the getting the genetics part right.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 8, 2008 4:39 PM
This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history. [muddy, but not pejorative - SG]
Sounds OK to me.
so, you're going to base you conclusions on wiki?
LOL
try reading the reasoning behind his "Moral Law" theory in his book, and THEN tell me it "sounds OK".
or, if you're too lazy to do that, read Gert's review of it here:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Theistic.cfm
scroll down to:
The Irreducibly Complex Moral Law
I'm of the same mind as Blake Stacey on this one. It's not that Collins doesn't do a good job explaining how all genetics observations support the ToE, it's that he is obviously unable to compartmentalize his religious nonsense when speaking about topics he apparently isn't well versed in (read: entirely ignorant of), like animal behavior, sociobiology,and aspects of humans physiology and psychology.
IOW, he is the kind of guy that will indeed turn directly to his religious beliefs for answers to things that he is simply ignorant of.
sorry, but that disqualifies him to be a good advisor in my mind.
In fact, I have very often used Collins as a great example of how the whole idea of compartmentalization is an inevitable failure, much like the concept of NOMA.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 4:44 PM
And, in fact, I'm not sure I should give credit to Collins for the getting the genetics part right.
interesting.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 4:45 PM
I think the main problem most people are having isn't about Collins specifically, but more about Nisbet denying that others (who don't have an evangelical xian viewpoint) are less qualified. He put up Collins as a god-friendly science proponent, others have suggested Miller.
But it seems to me whereas the scientists proposed by RPM (not because they were atheists from my reading) don't have an issue with faith/science, Miller puts a firm line between his faith and science, Collins seems to use science to confirm his faith. This leads to problems: the earth can't revolve around the sun because my religion taught me we were special in god's eye, we can't have evolve from earlier forms because we are apart from other animals. Collins is ok with most current scientific knowledge, but my fear is that when new insights are gained that defy Collins' faith, will he adjust his faith or adjust the science. What if he were certain that his god wouldn't let us wreck the planet via global warming? or that his god told him embryos are as much a human being as he is? Since this person is going to be advising the president on science issues, Ild prefer to have someone who is not in the backpocket of a supernatural entity. Nisbet seems to think this is a plus.
Posted by: Lorax | January 8, 2008 4:48 PM
All fine tuning arguments have the same problem -- they pick a special target that is important to us, and then go backwards to see what the odds of it happening were, measured against the possibilities it might not have happened. And then -- surprise -- the conclusion is that the target is very special. It's almost as if it were ... selected.
It was. At the beginning of the calculating process. By us.
Claims that God must have skillfully fine-tuned the universe for life should make us wonder where the narrow parameters God had to aim between came from. And why they're there in the first place. After all, the Fine Tuning Argument carries within it a hidden assumption: life -- even conscious life -- can exist in every condition, no matter what the nature of the universe is or was. Or is God not alive?
Posted by: Sastra, OM | January 8, 2008 4:49 PM
btw, can we just ignore Heddle for once?
it's not like those responding to him havent' seen the exact same "arguments" from him a hundred times before.
suffice it to say, he will project, misquote, and obfuscate.
is that really interesting?
this isn't a thread about cosmological IDiocy, after all.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 4:53 PM
but more about Nisbet denying that others (who don't have an evangelical xian viewpoint) are less qualified. He put up Collins as a god-friendly science proponent, others have suggested Miller.
actually, the real problem is Nisbet ignoring the obvious:
If Huckleberrry is in fact, elected...
we're completely hosed; "bukaked with stupid", as it were.. It hardly matters who he picks as "science adviser".
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 4:56 PM
David M.:
Well, errr... LOL. Maybe I don't. What I mean is, no corporeal entity intentionally made the cracks appear and actively ensured that the conditions in the cracks would be conducive to the formation and sustainting of mildew...
Posted by: Kseniya | January 8, 2008 4:57 PM
Kseniya
Well what universe did she have in mind? The most important of fine tunings is that if the universe expanded more rapidly nothing would have coalesced. If less, we'd have a big crunch. That's intergalactic-space-like everywhere or neutron-star-like everywhere. The third alternative, with galaxies, is our universe. So what did she mean?
If she had said that she doesn't believe our planet is fine tuned for life and that life might/would/probably did arise on another planet quite different from eaerth, then that's a much weaker and much more defensible statement, and the puddle analogy is valid. But for a different universe--in which that vast majority of cases would not even contain the building blocks for any kind of life (heavy elements) that something else altogether.
That's fine, but that is not what she wrote. She implied that if not this universe, then life would have found a way in another. If not the two possibilities that I described, then what is she talking about? If she meant another universe like this one, it was hardly worth the comment.
Blake Stacey
Um, no. This is at worst completely wrong and at best unsupported by current evidence.
That is not completely wrong, in fact I would venture to guess that the recognition of the appearance of fine tuning is the majority opinion.
Brownian OM,
Because I would dare make the same comment for the earth; see the comment above. Your comment completely misses the boat. Again: it is much easier to claim that the earth is not even apparently fine tuned--it is virtually impossible to claim that our universe, or at least our part of it, does not have the appearance of fine tuning. The number of atheistic physicists/cosmologists who acknowledge the fine tuning problem (for the universe, not the earth) is too lengthy to enumerate. Multiverse theories and cosmological evolution are two ways that the problem is being addressed.
Posted by: heddle | January 8, 2008 5:03 PM
bukkaked with stupid
Just what sort of video rental places do you have where you live, Ichythic?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 8, 2008 5:07 PM
What hubris. The universe is unimaginably vast, trillions of cubic light years of mostly empty space, with a little hydrogen for flavour. In a few extremely tiny spots some of that hydrogen and other stuff has clumped together to create stars, one hundred billion billion of them. Around some of these stars are even tinier clumps of matter. And out of all of the possibly million billion billion infinitesimal clumps of matter circling these stars in the void of trillions of cubic light years, we know of precisely one one on which some carbon and other stuff has been able to replicate itself. Given these facts, it is an act of profound arrogance to claim that the universe is somehow "fine-tuned" for human life. If anything, it is extraordinarily hostile to life, as the portion of it survivable by humans is so tiny as to be negligible.
If you think the universe is fine-tuned for life, try walking to Venus naked.
Posted by: Tulse | January 8, 2008 5:11 PM
Ichthyic:
Done!
This is where Daniel Martin's killfile script is a great help.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 8, 2008 5:12 PM
Just what sort of video rental places do you have where you live, Ichythic?
actually, I got that from the comments on a religio-video that was part of a recent thread here (the comment came from the video thread itself), and just decided it had just the right amount of accuracy and shock value.
kind of like: "The stupid: it burns!"
I notice you corrected my spelling, though....
;)
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 5:12 PM
A Molly and a book contract for Tulse!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 8, 2008 5:13 PM
Just what sort of video rental places do you have where you live
What's a video rental place?
Posted by: Ken Cope | January 8, 2008 5:14 PM
What I mean is, no corporeal entity intentionally made the cracks appear and actively ensured that the conditions in the cracks would be conducive to the formation and sustainting of mildew...
I'm going to take the liberty and suggest what you really mean is that there is no evidence than any entity intentionally made cracks appear in order to promote the growth of mildew.
nor, of course, is there any reason or need to suspect one.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 5:16 PM
What's a video rental place?
spoken like someone who truly understands one of the primary economic driving forces of the web.
:p
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 5:17 PM
Tulse,
No, you too are missing the point, It is not that the earth is fine tuned, but the universe. And the claim is not that it is fine tuned for human life, but it has the appearance of being fine tuned for the possibility of any kind of life--because it exists on a razor's edge for producing the building blocks of any kind of life. That is, quite easily none of those gazillions of clumps you mention would exist at all. That is the point of the universe having the appearance of fine tuning, and it is rather beyond dispute. You are arguing against a strawman.
Posted by: heddle | January 8, 2008 5:20 PM
Your comment completely misses the boat.
Says you, stupid.
She implied that if not this universe, then life would have found a way in another.
Talk about missing the boat; you're not even near a coast. She said that she thinks is happened in this universe this time around; that's all.
Any other implication you're drawing is completely your own. Don't hold us at fault because you've got a boner for God.
Look, if it'll make you go away, I'll concede that you're a supergenius who has us all cowed with your airtight understanding of the physical universe that conclusively proves that the Jews of 6,000 years ago got it completely right while all other Middle Easterners, Europeans, Africans, Asians, North, Central and South Americans, Australian Aborigines, and island dwellers various and sundry got it all wrong, but we're just to mired in our hatred of morality and authority to realise it.
That good enough for you, or do we have to give Jesus a rimmer too?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 8, 2008 5:22 PM
Francis Collins is being cheerfully exploited by hardcore young-earth creationists who cite him as being a fellow traveler. Southwest Radio Ministries has been flogging a book on its broadcasts this week, highlighting Panorama of Creation and author Carl Baugh. Baugh called Collins a creationist, allowing the minor qualification that Collins is "not a recent creationist," by which I assume he means that Collins is not a YEC.
Collins appears not to realize the degree to which he is aiding and abetting the anti-scientists.
Posted by: Zeno | January 8, 2008 5:24 PM
That good enough for you, or do we have to give Jesus a rimmer too?
oops, now you've done it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b35O8O_5ZM
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 5:26 PM
Speaking of what happens to scientists in the Bush Misadmin, I just heard James Hanson on PBS talk about how science was suppressed by Bush political appointees in various ways. I don't like that at all and hope for better from Obama or Hillary or Edwards etc. (Believing in a outside First Cause for the laws of the universe does not endear me, anymore than I presume e.g. Paul Davies looking from across the pond, to Bush's faith/politics-based approach to science. Most of the time I'm with you guys on practical issues, politics, science policy etc.)
Look at this link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/
Posted by: Neil B. | January 8, 2008 5:27 PM
saurabh et al.,
Collins is a biologist. He claims humans have stopped evolving. It doesn't get much more blatantly counterfactual than that. Explain to me again how someone who's demonstrated supreme incompetence (or, to be less charitable, ideologically-driven bad faith) in their own field would make a good science advisor.
Posted by: Stinky Wizzleteats | January 8, 2008 5:28 PM
Brownian, OM
I don't think that is what she meant at all. Because what she wrote was:
If she was not implying a puddle analogy, then she is not really saying anything at all. You see, I think she is much smarter than you; while you might be expected to make a manifestly obvious statement like "life happened in this universe this time around; that's all" which warrants a massive "gee, do you think so?" I don't think that is what she was saying. And if she was saying that Collins is wrong about our universe being the way it is gives the appearance of fine tuning, she didn't say it clearly--and in spite of Blake Stacey's comment she would be in a minority position. No, the only way I see to interpret what she said, given that surely it wasn't as stupid as what you claim, was that she believed that even if the universe had been different, life would have developed.
Posted by: heddle | January 8, 2008 5:37 PM
spoken like someone who truly understands one of the primary economic driving forces of the web.
Everybody knows the internet is fine-tuned for porn; from cave paintings and cathedrals to iphones, it isn't a communications medium unless it can be used to distribute porn (says the guy whose first job as an 18 yr. old projectionist was at 1973's Pussycat Theater, a porn house down the street from Knott's Berry Farm).
Posted by: Ken Cope | January 8, 2008 5:42 PM
Heddle: No.
Ichthyic: Yes.
Brownian: Right!
Stinky: The esteemed Dr. Collins is a JAD sockpuppet?!?
(sorry to be terse - gotta fly!)
Posted by: Kseniya | January 8, 2008 5:45 PM
the internet is fine-tuned for porn
perfect.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 5:46 PM
You still don't know that. :-)
(Cue Ockham's War Axe. Ichthyic is right in comment 42, which probably is why it's 42, but I digress.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | January 8, 2008 5:46 PM
Ken Cope saith,
That's a line I'm gonna steal.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 8, 2008 5:49 PM
Reread her comment again, and you'll see that her 'Gee, do you think so?' comment is a direct refutation of the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life (which has all sorts of implications, one of which being that a universe 'fine-tuned' for life would imply that life necessary would involve in it. Why write a computer program (or fine-tune a universe for life) if you're not going to type 'run' (or make life develop)?
Thus, she is saying something, and it is the 'Gee, do you think so?' interpretation that is not supported by the fine-tuning argument.
Keep trying though. You're at the point where you're so fucking wrong, any change in your thinking can only get you closer to the truth.
It's fun watching you try to work things out; like a dog studying its owner operate a doorknob, the puzzlement on your face must be positively darling.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 8, 2008 6:31 PM
btw, I'd just like to say that seeing Nisbet not only make the argument that Collins would be a fine adviser, but already making an assumption that Huckleberry will win, adds to the negative column he has already been building for himself.
seriously, how long do we have to let this guy age before his ego stops writing checks his ideology can't handle?
will he start to make sense in 5 years, you think?
ten?
It worries me that Nisbet apparently has the ear of some political movers and shakers, as I'm quite sure they are getting bad advice from him, well intentioned though it might be.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 6:40 PM
... further, I begin to see a need for a direct counterpoint to Nisbet's position, especially from the standpoint of promoting good science communication.
Is there anybody acting in that role at this point?
I didn't see anybody on the NAS panel, nor, for that matter, was anybody apparently invited to play that role.
I hate to rehash an old discussion, but this has been gnawing at me ever since it was pointed out by PZ and others a few months back.
so, the question is:
WHO is countering Nisbet's nonsense within the area of scientific communication and politics?
and, no, a blog is hardly a sufficient counter, so don't bother going there.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 6:44 PM
Human evolution since Homo sapiens arose from H. ergaster/erectus/antecessor... enzymes to digest milk, epicanthic fold, blue eyes, sickle-cell gene for malaria resistance, but these are the obvious ones occurring to a non-geneticist entomologist. Collins cannot be a science adviser for the simple reason that he must be incompetent. Alternatively, since he is working in the field of human genomics, who is doing the research and does this make Collins a figure-head (or worse), again not science adviser material.
As we all know, said by both Darwin and J.B.S Haldine- "The Lord must be inordinately fond of beetles." One of every five species in the world is a beetle (one of every seven is a weevil). Three out of every five species in the world are insects. So, if the (ridiculous) point is accepted that the universe was fine tuned for life, it certainly was NOT human life. Mark Twain covered this point adequately more than a century ago with his essay- Was the World made for man.
Posted by: mothra | January 8, 2008 6:53 PM
Brownian, OM,
You are wrong, as usual, although if you are smug enough and pretend you are right then maybe you can satisfy yourself.
Indeed, I might be wrong on this, but if I am so are many other people. Because all I have stated is (and all Collins is stating is):
1) The universe appears to be fine tuned for creating the building blocks of life (heavy elements.) (From this you stated: "that a universe 'fine-tuned' for life would imply that life necessary would involve in it." which is an incorrect inference--although I would think that the majority on here would tend to agree that life in our universe was more or less inevitable.
2) The appearance of fine tuning is this: tweak the constants, and the universe will not be capable of producing the building blocks of life.
That is all I have stated here, and all that Collins is stating, and it is not even controversial. In fact the only serious physical scientist I know who disputes this is Victor Stenger, who had a plan to demonstrate that our universe doesn't even have the appearance of fine tuning--that is, it is not sensitive to the values of the constants. He has not published that, as far as I know, but it is a sensible approach, although a minority opinion. However, I have yet to see another scientist, when discussing the fine tuning problem, dismiss it with a reference to Stenger.
So you can keep saying I'm wrong, but have not demonstrated it.
By the way, I forgot to mention that David Marjanović, OM was spot-on in #23 when he wrote
That is exactly right--saying the universe appears to be fine-tune for rocks is the same as saying it appears to be fine tuned for life. A universe that cannot produce rocks cannot produce life, and one that can produce rocks will produce the building blocks for life.
Posted by: heddle | January 8, 2008 6:55 PM
Stinky Wizzleteats (#49): Read the comment thread on the above linked RPM post for more on that subject. There's no quotes of Collins saying that explicitly, and I'd be surprised if he believes that; there's a paper every other week about ongoing selection in humans in some major journal or another, so it would be nigh-impossible for someone in his position to hold that point of view.
Posted by: saurabh | January 8, 2008 7:01 PM
How does one "tune" a constant?
Posted by: poke | January 8, 2008 7:54 PM
@61:
Well, I don't give him that much benefit of the doubt. The "[w]hat you see is pretty much what you get," part seems to me to support the paraphrase by the interviewer that, I should point out, Collins has not disavowed. I'm sympathetic to the plight of scientists misquoted by lousy reporters, but an interview is a pretty one-on-one thing and I'd hope anyone competent enough to be science advisor would correct such a misconception in the interview (or at least after reading the printed interview). Also, Collins can't claim that we were created in God's image as God's goal and at the same time admit the evidence that we are still evolving, since that destroys the internal logic of theistic evolution (if evolution is God's way of making us in his image, and we are in His image, why would He use it to change us away from His image?).
@62:
"Constants" are probably better called "free parameters." You have the rules that govern physical interactions, but as currently understood there are a lot (the number depends on how you count them and if you believe "constants" with units attached are physically meaningful) of numbers you have to tack on that are purely empirically determined. These are things like the strengths of the fundamental forces and ratios of particle masses. According to the "fine-tuning argument" life is only possible in a narrow range of these free parameters, therefore... I don't know. Something. The universe is just as likely to have different free parameters than the ones it has so the universe probably isn't the way it is? Something like that.
Posted by: Stinky Wizzleteats | January 8, 2008 8:41 PM
I'd be surprised if he believes that; there's a paper every other week about ongoing selection in humans in some major journal or another, so it would be nigh-impossible for someone in his position to hold that point of view.
there are even more papers discussing the evolution of altruistic behavior in animals, which Collins is just as apparently ignorant of, so it's hardly impossible for him to hold such a POV, since he has already shown the capability of doing so.
this is the point: his religious beliefs are automatically what he falls back on when uninformed on something scientifically.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 8:45 PM
What a doofus:
TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.
COLLINS: Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.
Posted by: CalGeorge | January 8, 2008 9:09 PM
from the first line of the article you pulled that from, the author (DAVID VAN BIEMA) writes:
sorry, but that was a showstopper for me. It simply makes no sense, whatsoever.
hard to think anything else the author has to say would be of interest after that.
*shrug*
still, I would guess the direct quotes at least would be useable material.
sorry to see yet more bad writing prevalent in such a "time" honored publication (pun intended).
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 9:21 PM
make that:
first line of the third page (where your link goes).
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 9:23 PM
Did you miss the "trillions of cubic light years of mostly empty space" part?
Right, those trillions of cubic light years of mostly empty space are so carefully "fine tuned" to produce an almost literally infinitesimally small bit of reproducing carbon in an almost literally infinitesimal corner of it. It is like saying that that the New York sewers are "fine tuned" to produce jewelry because occasionally someone drops their wedding ring in the toilet.
If the only evidence of purposeful "fine tuning" you have is a tiny clump of matter in an almost infinite void, call me unimpressed at the efficiency of the "tuner".
Think of it another way -- whatever could "fine tune" the actual fabric of the cosmos presumably could have, for example, filled those trillions of cubic light years with warm breathable air. And quintillions of Starbucks. And fountains filled with Lagavulin. And iPod trees. And an unlimited supply of Natalie Portman. That kind of universe would convince me of "fine tuning", that its very nature was set so that it could be inhabited. The present one is a pretty frickin' thin by comparison.
Posted by: Tulse | January 8, 2008 9:34 PM
Hello all! I've posted this over at Matt Nisbet and RPM's respective blogs as a disclaimer, since I was referenced in Nisbet's original post and in some of the comments.
MATT: Whoa!
I appreciate being mentioned on your blog, but if you check my original post, you will see that I was skeptical about the merits of science popularizers, as when I wrote:
"Independent, thoughtful men and women who are career scientists or better-known for science popularization are probably not the best choice, because they will have already said or written things which are impolitic or easily misrepresented....what you need is someone who has achieved in science, but who switched to bureaucracy and who has some understanding of the weight lifting and making nice-nice that gets science funded in the first place."
I went on to mention Francis Collins, who definitely qualifies under the latter description. However, many of my skeptical friends don't know Collins from his actual body of work in gummint, but as an evangelical Christian who makes poor arguments about evolutionary biology. Among such, he no doubt fits the description of someone how has 'written something impolitic or easily misrepresented.' Obviously, I don't agree, Collins would make a reasonably good choice.
But my post didn't single Collins out as the best choice, necessarily, nor did I view his personal faith as especially qualifying him for service. It would be misleading to characterize my post as such, or to identify my views as the same as yours, Matt, and I want to make sure people know that. Thanks for the mention all the same.
While I'm on the topic, I'd like to remark that the PSA's main job should be to advise the President and defend the interests of the scientific community, not explain science to the general public or to advance a particular partisan agenda. I don't know why so many commenting seem to think otherwise.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | January 8, 2008 9:51 PM
first, I'd like to say that Nisbet used you, very inappropriately, Scottt, and his musings have become rather more than annoying at this point.
that said, two things:
but as an evangelical Christian who makes poor arguments about evolutionary biology. Among such, he no doubt fits the description of someone how has 'written something impolitic or easily misrepresented.' Obviously, I don't agree
you don't agree he makes horribly poor arguments regarding evolution at times, or that he fits the description of having written something "impolitic"?
if the latter, we could debate that, if the former, that simply isn't debatable; it's plain fact.
I'd like to remark that the PSA's main job should be to advise the President and defend the interests of the scientific community, not explain science to the general public or to advance a particular partisan agenda
i begin to wonder at this point if the two are actually separable, or if they should be, given the poor performance of the last president in the face of contrary information from his own science adviser.
Moreover (getting back to Collins), based on Collins' book, do you really think him capable of avoiding the advancement of an agenda?
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2008 10:01 PM
According to the "fine-tuning argument" life is only possible in a narrow range of these free parameters, therefore... I don't know. Something. The universe is just as likely to have different free parameters than the ones it has so the universe probably isn't the way it is? Something like that.
You got off to a good start, stinky, but then your last sentence is a non sequitur (that things could have been different is for abstract comparative analysis, not to challenge it being like this indeed.) The question is, why should the universe have traits "friendly to life" if the "why" of its being that way is not "purposive" in some way directed to that end. That in turn is a subset of the whole question, why are the laws of nature (or maybe just "our universe") what they are? The silliest and emptiest thing is to just say, "why not", or "that's just the way things are", because we don't know how to construct that the laws should be a given way out of pure logic in effect. IOW, we can construct logical models using math with completely different constants or principles, and there is just no logical way to relate one or some class of them to "exist-worthy" versus not. (Indeed, modal realists argue cogently that there is no logical way to make a meaningful distinction between "existing" in the non-mathematical sense that supposedly distinguishes material worlds from platonic descriptions. Their argument is formally impeccable, so ironically one must be a sort of mystic to be a "materialist" - I bet you guys didn't realize that.)
The basic problem is, you have these alternatives and all of them rightly irritate someone for perhaps good reasons:
1. The modal realists are right, so every possible description of configuration is equally real, and yes that means cartoons and whatever, but also gods and devils and heavens and hells etc. - but don't worry too much, the modal realists are too prissily logical. Our universe can't even be a "mathematical structure" anyway because of the existence of genuine unconditional randomness as e.g. the decay of "structureless" muons. There is no mathematical structure that can produce such outcomes (Lumo agrees with me), you would have to put in a pseudo-random number generator "by hand" which used clunky stuff like digits of roots (and you have to pick a different root for different muons, since they decay at different durations origination. Then there's conscious experience, flowing time (no math structure models "process" directly, only as frozen coordinate representation.)
2. OK, scratch that, so maybe "God" which by philosophical definition, not per most religious believers (why should the least capable proponents tone the debate?) just means something/one that is the necessary being that all others are contingent on for existence and presumably their properties as well. If it contains purposive traits, then our universe is like it is so we or etc. can be here, because a bunch of dead stuff is just dumb. I still don't get why that bothers so many people. (But if you want to just beg off all of this per Popperism etc, fine, that's the most honorable way out.)
3. Don't like that either, eh? Well, then you can think that there "just happens" to be this stuff here, with maybe some similarly unexplained range of variation (versus the complete anarchy of total modal realism) but no logical hook to hang on as for why it's like that - especially, why life-friendly and just happens to lead to critters than can argue (indeed!) about this very issue, but insisted as being due to unrelated "non-deliberate" reasons of some sort. But since there's really no logical theory of likely existence, you really then can't say why there isn't a 23-dimensional field of moving specks instead, etc.
This time I'll try not to press over what I like best. Just enjoy the possibilities.
Posted by: Neil B. | January 8, 2008 10:03 PM
Tulse - you should read over The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by Barrow and Tipler. They make a very comprehensive and detailed case about the fine-tuning, and the basic point is: if physical parameters were slightly different, then we couldn't even be here on this little speck (as if relative sizes and proportions are what should matter anyway) at all. Well, what's your (or anyone else's) fabulous explanation for why the universe is the way it is? If you can't answer that question your way, I have little sympathy for your being very self-assured against other concepts.
As for "Any deity who could ______" riffs, that is based on a presumption of omnipotence. Yet there is no logical reason why some foundational uncaused being would have to be "omnipotent," given one at all. (Look - isn't it silly to disagree with religious folks about whether God exists, but think they have to be right about what It must be like if It does exist? Why couldn't it be the other way around?)
Posted by: Neil B. | January 8, 2008 10:14 PM
shorter Neil B.
I prefer not to be bound by observation and evidence, so any premise I feel like pulling out of my ass is not only not forbidden, but compulsory.
Posted by: Ken Cope | January 8, 2008 10:17 PM