In fact the phrase 'political science' makes me laugh and can be summed up nicely in a snippet a colleague, years ago once said, 'do you want the truth or can I lie'. But it is interesting what our viewpoint does to our reason. Anthropogenic Global Warming sounds entirely plausible if you don't have too much information (which is why the original data is held by a small group of true believers), but as soon as you see the full picture you begin to wonder how we ever believed otherwise. I have this with Evolution too. Notwithstanding figures like Dawkins, who seem keen on replacing not deleting God, I do not think that when we have a theory we like, science stands still. In fact this is a very modern concept ('modern' in the same context that Blair used to use it, meaning backward, without utility). In a nutshell, Darwin's Theory of Evolution says that offspring are not identical copies of their parents and by mixing two sets of genes and with the odd mutation, every so often a beneficial change occurs in a species and that more successful trait survives. Tigers have stripes to enable them to hide in undergrowth, which enables them to get close to their prey, all the better for their chances of catching and killing them. The same applies, naturally to the spots on leopards and the absence of both on lions. Presumably earlier tigers existed, fully equipped with teeth and claws but missing the vital ingredient of stripes. It is all accidental you see, happenchance. Happy happenchance even. It seems plausible and obviously did so to Charles Darwin, who in less certain, less arrogant times perhaps, recorded his ideas as his opinion and every child knows it as the Theory of Evolution, because it is just that, a theory. Today and particularly in certain hands it cannot be opposed, not just so its supporters are right, but because they feel the only other option is to believe in God and they fervently oppose that. So in their opinion it is Evolution or Intelligent Design, nothing else. But what about science? There might be no God (or Dawkins favoured option, life created here by aliens) but the Theory of Evolution could still be wrong.
I mean, think about it (and be in danger of adopting a different viewpoint from the one pushed on you). How many rubbish mutations must there have been, that added nothing useful before we got the killing machine that is the cheetah, including its stretchy spine that enables it to run faster. all provided just by chance. As different creatures eat the lower vegetation, taller creatures with longer necks eat the higher vegetation; it becomes their niche. And so little by little the neck gets longer until we have the giraffe (accidentally don't forget, this is not planned). How fantastically unlikely is that? What are the odds? And if eating vegetation at higher levels was an imperative forced on them by competition lower down, how come they could survive long enough for all the lucky mutations to come along? Or did some unlucky mother of a more mundane creature one day give birth to a baby with 9 foot legs and a 20 foot neck? The mutations thing isn't impossible, but it is just so staggeringly unlikely that I can't believe we not only have never come up with anything better, but supposedly clever people are now saying we shouldn't try.
Darwin referred to some finches that he saw that were similar but had different beaks and ate different food. He speculated that perhaps those with the more robust beak, that ate nuts did so because the competition for fruit or berries (I'm paraphrasing, but the essence is there!) meant there was not enough to support an ever larger population. At some point a bird was born with a slightly stronger beak that tried and succeeded in eating nuts. The offspring carried this on until, hey presto finches with bigger beaks eating nuts, larger population able to be sustained, nature will find a way, survival of the fittest and no God anywhere. Perfect. But I don't understand why it couldn't just be simpler. When I pick up weights to exercise and build up my muscles (if you know me, you know I'm paraphrasing again!) I actually damage those muscles. My body then goes into repair mode, but usefully and without conscious thought, rebuilds them stronger. I am facing challenges to my body, so I need to be stronger, fitter to meet those challenges. Would it also affect my DNA? If I spent my time body building, would my progeny have a genetic disposition to greater body bulk, or to acquire it more quickly? Why not? Why can my muscles respond in this way, without a plan, but nothing else?
We accept that DNA can contain a schematic to make a whole human being, using the same cells at the outset to become completely different things later. We accept this, not least I would guess because it is a physical thing. So what on earth is instinct? A baby kangaroo is not born in the pouch, but that is where the teats and safety are. On being born (enough of a trauma you would have thought) the Joey has to cling on and then move up to where the pouch is and climb inside. Whilst its eyes are still closed. So, it not only has to be born with sufficiently strong muscles to hold on and move, it also has 'know' that it has to move and exactly where it needs to go. That is some dataset to transfer, or do they just make it through luck, happenchance?
All of the above suggests to me that there has to be some kind of feedback loop. Consider the finches. Life is getting tough for the little fellahs because there isn't enough fruit to go around. So, some of them try the nuts, but they struggle because of the shape of their beak. This 'information' feeds back into their genetic make up, because it is really important to these birds only just getting by, scraping the edges of nuts. Their offspring are subsequently born with slightly stronger beaks and do that bit better. It isn't 'intelligent design' (otherwise they might have opted for nutcrackers) but it isn't random chance either. It has been said that evolution seems to experience sudden rushes when things change rapidly and no-one knows why. Well have a think then. I really do despair of junk science. The AGW promoters are actually dangerous rather than deluded (that honour falls to their congregation) but it probably started that way, as a delusion. Like the recent space news. Having estimated the gravitational force of the universe and the mass it contains a whopping great discrepancy was found. Now, unlike schoolkids who are struggling to divide their sweets up correctly because their maths is crap, they didn't decide they must have got something wrong, no they invented 'dark matter'. It had to exist, otherwise they would be wrong about something, which doesn't seem to be a comfortable idea for scientists these days. It was dark, because you couldn't see it. But, like an invisible friend, now the thinking is that it doesn't exist. Yes, because science doesn't revolve around inventing answers. Theories are fine and await final proof, but when the theory itself, relies on 'well it has to exist' we are back to God again. What would Dawkins say to that!
No comments:
Post a Comment