The good part about purely materialistic science, what is sometimes called Positivism, is that it ignores the question of Why. Men always end up killing each other over the question of Why.
The bad part about materialistic science is that we make very powerful weapons, and using them have killed many more of each other than we ever did over the question of Why.
When I was in college in the 80's, the name Stephen Jay Gould (SJG) was known to every student of geology, but not to every student of biology. Why was this? In the 1970's SJG led a rebellion to get the world of evolutionary biologists to agree that classical Darwinian evolution - as carefully spelled out in Darwin's wonderful books - simply does not fit the data. In fact, the data disagrees with Darwin's theory, hence the theory, must be abandoned or modified. The modification sought by SJG was on whether biological changes happen in small, smooth increments, or if the changes are large and happen suddenly. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of large, sudden changes. Darwin's theory calls for small incremental changes. Hence we need a new theory. The new theory is sometimes called "punctuated equilibrium." This new theory has changed since its first publication, and now, from very recent statistical studies across many species and eras, the theory is formulated as: ecosystems of flora and fauna exist for long periods of time relatively unchanged, then very quickly (in geological time) many new flora and fauna come into existence, while the old ones die out. Note the word "ecosystems". We are no longer talking about individual species.
To restate: we need a theory that explains how large changes happen very quickly, and how multiple symbiotic species arise together. By "large changes", and "multiple symbiotic species" we mean something like: new insects that can fly and eat nectar and sense the electrical fields of flowers, and whose feces provides nutrients for fungi that allow the roots of the flowers to absorb nutrients, AND the arising of flowers that have nectar and specific electric fields and require flying insects for pollination and need that fungus for their roots, AND the arising of fungus that is compatible for just that plant and requires the nutrients feces of just those insects. The reality is much more complex. Flowers, insects, and fungus are just three voices in what is probably a symphony of one hundred species.
I can see that I am not spending much time with SJG, but I think he might be pleased that his work is causing such explosions of thought in me.
Why are scientists generally not interested in history? Take especially astrophysicists. Find one, ask them about the history of science (their chosen profession), and I wager they will say something equivalent to, "In the past clever people like Newton and Galileo did the best they could with limited data and the horrible influence of the Catholic Church, but now we know what is what." This sounds snarky. But go ahead, ask, see what kind of answers you get.
Since we are now asking people on the street, find a Biologist. Question this biologist what separates the latest statement of "Punctuated Equilibrium" from Creationism. I wager you will get a blank stare, because this biologist does not care about history and hence knows almost nothing about any previous models, whether they be those of Lyell, or Cuvier. Darwin was right, and that is that, end of discussion - though Darwin's theory does not fit the data, and needs to be replaced by a theory as described above. But tut tut, Darwin was right, end of discussion.
If you care about the history of science, read "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes". Read any book by Gould. The best scientists transcend all particular fields. SJG is so well-educated, so filled with actual details, so cognisant of his own limitations, and so devoted to exploring his chosen discipline of evolutionary biology, and has a sense of humor! that one cannot help but be inspired. We all need inspiration.
One of the essays, "Hutton's Purpose", explores one of the fundamental pillars of evolution theory, the questions of causation. I was very excited when SJG brought in the ancient Greek idea that everything has four distinct levels of cause: 1) the function it will perform, 2) the plan required to make it, 3) the things (agencies) that actually build it, 4) the material from which it is made. Modern science only recognizes #3, the mechanical, or efficient cause. I guess you could argue that modern science recognizes #4 also, but I might disagree because modern science has nothing to put in distinction to #4. Number 4 is assume to be all that exists. SJG is reminding us that Darwin's theory did for biology what Newton's laws ended up doing for astronomy: reducing all explanation to one and only one level of cause - the efficient cause, better known to us as "Forces". The modern astronomer does not ask what function a solar system might perform, or what plan it might be unfolding from. You simply cannot publish/teach/research/fund such questions.
My excitement waned when SJG clearly recalled for all of us the very long history of four-levels-of-cause, and then wrote that he is of course not suggesting that any of these other types of causes be readmitted into science.
I don't want this essay to end on a downer. Read SJG. He is simply one of the best authors of our time. I am not talking science writers. I am talking WRITERS.
Comments
No posts