Physicist Eric Hedin has posted to the Discovery Institute site Evolution News on 27 November 2024 an argument that the processes of physics cannot account for intelligent life. As he is a well-trained physicist (whose Ph.D. degree was from my university), and who has done experimental work on plasma physics, we can expect a mathematically sophisticated argument which would give us all pause.

Well, here’s the guts of his argument, from the Evolution News post:

In fact, for making anything other than large-scale conglomerations of matter (such as stars and planets), nature has only one tool in its bag — the electromagnetic force. This tool primarily manifests as the electric force, causing opposite charges (such as electrons and protons) to attract, and like charges to repel. It is completely indiscriminate, and cannot select between multiple options, preferring one charge over another, except for the rule that the bigger the charges and the closer the distance between them the stronger the resulting force. Can you imagine such blind, brute forces pulling together countless atoms of specific elements into the necessary configurations to result in a functioning laptop computer?

and

The “boundaries of science” refers to the common-sense conclusion that nature is limited in what it can produce to outcomes consistent with the laws and forces of nature. Natural processes are sought and found to be sufficient for natural phenomena, such as star formation or precipitation.

However, attempting to naturally explain the origin of some things found within our universe comes into conflict with the boundaries of science. Positing a natural explanation for the origin of the universe itself, the origin of the specific suite of physical parameters finely tuned to allow life, the origin of life itself, and the origin of conscious, intelligent minds, all defy what we have discovered about the limits of natural processes.

And basically, that’s the argument. Evolutionary biology does not pretend to address the origin of the universe, or the issue of fine-tuning in physics, and even the origin of life is outside its scope, though adjacent. But somehow Hedin knows that physical forces cannot explain “the origin of conscious, intelligent minds”. I wonder how he knows that.

Continue Reading

Photograph by Mark Sturtevant.

Photography Contest, Honorable Mention.

According to the Pew Research Center, confidence in scientists has ticked up slightly, though it remains lower than it was before the pandemic. That is one of the conclusions of a report, Public Trust in Scientists and Views on Their Role in Policymaking, by Alec Tyson and Brian Kennedy. Pew surveyed nearly 10,000 US adults in October and discovered that Americans (mostly) perceive scientists as intelligent, honest, and focused on real-world problems. They see communication as a weak area and think that we are good at working in teams, though how they know about teamwork is a puzzle to me.

At least they think we are reasonably bright; they also find us socially awkward, cold, superior, and closed-minded. Figure 1 shows how these perceptions break down according to political party: Democrats and their fellow travelers (whom I shall call Democrats) have a considerably more favorable view of scientists than Republicans and their fellow travelers (whom I shall call Republicans). I was somewhat bemused by the claim of roughly half of Republicans that scientists "[d]on't pay attention to moral values of society," and wondered precisely what and whose moral values they have in mind.

Pew notes, somewhat to my surprise,

Continue Reading

Photograph by Ken Phelps.

Photography Contest, Honorable Mention.

To see comments on this post click below:

Continue Reading

The book is Every Living Thing, The Great and Deadly Race to Know All Life, by Jason Roberts. It is sort of a double biography of Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) and Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), but it continues to follow their legacies well beyond their lifetimes to the present. I cannot recommend it more highly.

I do not know what impression Mr. Roberts intended, but if you thought Linnaeus was a young man on the make, something of a scoundrel who might say anything in the interests of self-promotion, you might not be too far from the truth. The hero of this book is not Linnaeus but rather his sometime rival, Buffon.

But let us deal with Linnaeus first. Linnaeus obtained a phony doctor’s degree from what we would now call a diploma mill. He anointed 14 (or 17 of what he called his “apostles” (!), sent them on long journeys from which many never returned, and completely abandoned one who returned with no specimens. He has been criticized for not allowing his daughters their educations, to a degree, says Roberts, that was extreme even for the time (but he supported his daughter Elisabeth in her interest in botany. She wrote a paper devoted to what is now known as the Elizabeth Linnaeus phenomenon). Linnaeus also believed in the fixity of species, not to mention some very bizarre creatures, but in that he was probably not alone.

Linnaeus developed a taxonomy that is largely in use today; that is a major accomplishment, to say the least. After defining and then apparently rejecting some ridiculous species within the genus Homo, he divided Homo sapiens into four subspecies: in essence, European, African, indigenous American, and Asian. Europeans, to Linnaeus, were governed by laws, whereas Africans were governed by whim, Americans by customs, and Asians by opinions. Roberts notes that “apologists have attempted to absolve Linnaeus of racism,” but he insists that claiming that Europeans alone were governed by laws is a clear statement of superiority. He cannot forgive Linnaeus, who stood by these characterizations for the rest of his life. I do not know whether Roberts is engaging in presentism, but I suspect not.

Continue Reading