There's been much written around here about the NYT's David Brooks' foray in to non-materialist neuroscience. Well, today the letters to the editor are in, and some of them are interesting (although most aren't particularly sophisticated).
One in particular highlights some failures we've had as science educators (including a failure to educate editors):
To the Editor:
As an engineer, lawyer, computer programmer and Roman Catholic, I have a problem with the concept that the evolution of the species just happened. From an evolutionary perspective, we are probably somewhere in the chicken and egg debate.
As man supposedly evolved from a single-cell amoeba to the complex organism that he is today, we had to develop a complex brain to manage the process.
The first problem facing a self-developing species in its early stages would be the need to know that there is something out there to see, feel, hear, touch or taste. The second problem is that a complex brain could not survive the incredibly complex development process without the five senses in operational mode. And you can't get the senses in operational mode until you have developed a sophisticated brain with the ability to communicate and interact with the senses.
Therein lies our chicken and egg dilemma.
Ken LeBrun
Stony Brook, N.Y., May 13, 2008
Ken has a few gaps in education, and it's worth a bit of fisking:
First, the Catholic Church doesn't really have anything against evolution.
Next, biology doesn't say that "evolution...just happened...". Evolution is a complex and beautiful theory that explains many facts about life...there is no "just happened"---that would be more consistent with the deus ex machina view of Creationist cults. I'm not sure what he means by "chicken and egg problem", as that is not an actual conundrum...eggs are part of the chicken...it's like saying "which came first, the chicken or the beak?"
The first problem facing a self-developing species in its early stages would be the need to know that there is something out there to see, feel, hear, touch or taste
First, I am unfamiliar with the concept of a "self-developing species". I suppose he means a species that evolved without the hand of God, as species don't "self-develop". Evolution is a complext relationship between individuals, populations, and environments.
Also, species don't "face problems" of having to "know" what to develop. If a trait is selected for and favored, well, there you have it. You don't have to know where you're going when it comes to evolution.
Species (not organisms) evolve in toto...eyes don't suddenly sprout out of a dinoflagellate. And remember, the egg is the chicken.
This letter shows a terrible (and correctable) lack of understanding of biology.
C'mon folks---we need to do a better job getting the learnin' done.
- Log in to post comments
and engineer and a lawyer. 'nuf said....
Noooo! Evolution is not long-term goal-directed and intentful! It burns!
...(How) does he think brainless microorganisms evolve at all?
Please don't tar all us engineers with the same brush... there are many (most?) of us who are quite rational, thank you, and intelligent and reasoning enough to both understand and accept evolution.
But I have to admit that it is depressing to think there are so many otherwise bright people who are so sadly misguided, especially in this country. Makes me yearn to be back in dear old Blighty.
Proof I guess that you can be educated but not learned.
It's not that engineers are bad, RayM, it's that engineers who start off a statement with "as an engineer" are bad, because what comes after that phrase is usually stultifyingly dumb. And that pretty much goes no matter what profession the person's in. What he's really saying is, "I think this, and I must be on to something because I'm really really smart." But if he was really smart he'd know he really should stick with the things he knows. I know I do, and boy, is my astrologist thankful.
"Next, biology doesn't say that "evolution...just happened...". Evolution is a complex and beautiful theory that explains many facts about life...there is no "just happened""
"Also, species don't "face problems" of having to "know" what to develp. It just happens."
ROFL!
Sorry, I just had to be a jerk, lol.
The guy obviously doesn't understand evolution.
However, I'm disappointed that you lazily use a link as a way to discredit part of his argument, the part where he speaks "as a Roman Catholic".
This is not the place to get into sectarian religious arguments. But as a convert to RC I want to point out that there are as many "sects" or "flavours" within the RCC as there are outide it! No one can speak "for the Roman Catholic Church" except the Pope speaking "ex Cathedra" which has only happened once, and that recently in church terms
(1870)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
There are R Catholics who argue against the concept of Papal infallibility. There are others who genuflect when a cardinal farts. The latter type are all over the internet like a rash.
In short, the guy can't speak for the RCC, "Catholic Answers" can't speak for the RCC and neither can you.
regards
Di
Sorry, the wiki link didn't come up properly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
PS - Neither can wiki (I knew I shouldn't have started this...)
di
Proof, I guess, that a person can be educated but not learned.
I met an engineer once who was convinced that vegetarians would get all the protein they need by breathing...since air is mostly nitrogen anyway!
You should have seen my stare...
Am I the only one who has noticed an big uptick in these anti-science riffs and themes. Is 'science' the new punching bag for conservatives? It seems they are setting up the 'faith voters' for a new thing to fear (SCIENCE!) since the 'gay' thing is no longer operable for the national GOP and religious right (see Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, etc).
Why does David Brooks suddenly get into this arcane neuroscience-linkage-to-evolution is a problem for the faithful' subject in his political obits? I read that Brooks piece the day it came out, and was trying to figure out what he was really talikng about and what is the motivation for this? Why this? Why now?
Scientists as a group are easy targets with very poor PR skills and can come off as arrogant by speaking and arguing using the scientific style with political spinners. David Brooks just makes up stuff from thin air and forces neuroscience to defend itself in the public realm. Conversely the nueroscience department at Yale is never going to walk into a evangelical church on Sunday and demand 'equal time' in the pastor's pulpit to present the 'other side' of a spiritual arguement.
I'd like to wonder what "management" tasks related to natural selection the brain manages...
"I'll get eaten by a predator at this time so that my genes aren't passed on to the next generation."
I think Mr. LeBrun has mistaken evolution for a process that occurs in the lifetime of a single individual. Hell, even development of a single individual's body is not entirely managed by the brain.
One of these is not like the other ones.
Anyone who thinks you need a complex brain to interact with sensory organs clearly has not spent much time with flatworms, or even bacteria that exhibit chemotaxis. As for chicken and the egg, the egg came first (evolutionarily), and we have all those lovely fossil dinosaur eggs to prove it.
Damn. Stony Brook now has dear Dr. Egnor and this guy to our credit. I'm starting to worry that there may be something in the water out here.... :)
I perfectly willing to let those who denigrate science give it up. No more medicine or technology for them in that case.
This is not the place to get into sectarian religious arguments.
Yet, here you are ...
But as a convert to RC ...
You have a ways to go in your understanding of RC practice and doctrine then. Sects? Flavors? One ex cathedra statement?
Ditto to DC's
> "...big uptick in these anti-science riffs and themes. Is 'science' the new punching bag for conservatives? It seems they are setting up the 'faith voters' for a new thing to fear (SCIENCE!)"
Maybe it's just that they're coming out of the closet, as it were, about their war on science.
And as Michael Tobis pointed out recently, your position on global warming basically comes down to whether you or not you trust the institution and culture of science to yield good data. Since the standard Republicans' viewpoint is antiscience, in order for their position to survive the spread of this realization, they've got to kill, or seriously weaken, their 'opponent'.
It's got a Rovian logic to it.
I guess Ken is the model which inspired South Carolina to try again to pass an anti-evolution bill.
s/kill, or seriously weaken/tear down the credibility of/
i.e., attack science on its strengths.
We have seen this strategy before.
"As man supposedly evolved from a single-cell amoeba to the complex organism that he is today, we had to develop a complex brain to manage the process.
The first problem facing a self-developing species in its early stages would be the need to know that there is something out there to see, feel, hear, touch or taste. The second problem is that a complex brain could not survive the incredibly complex development process without the five senses in operational mode. And you can't get the senses in operational mode until you have developed a sophisticated brain with the ability to communicate and interact with the senses.
Therein lies our chicken and egg dilemma."
I can't beleive anyone would consider that a credible argument agaist evolution! HOW STUPID!
Oddly enough, I've noticed a trend that if someone is going to have wacky unscientific beliefs and still be educated in a sciencey-type field, it always seems to be the engineers and mathematicians that go cranky. Something about the appeal of certainty to the breed maybe. But Engineer's Disease is a real phenomenon.
Dear Tomjay,
Yeah, I stuffed up the ex cathedra statement. There is no edit to go back and fix it up.
For the rest, my only intention is to point out that there is great diversity in RC belief. That point is relevant to the original post.
regards
Di
You have rediscovered the Salem Hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis
One wonders why he didn't add "as a parent ...". Isn't that the traditionally accepted preliminary to spouting off about something one knows nothing about?
Fixed. ;)