Saw the program on Nova about a court case in the US in which proponents of Intelligent Design ("ID") were pitted against those who argued in favor of evolution. The apparent objective of the case was to determine if ID was fit to be presented in Dover Schools in the Science curriculum.
In the decision, ID was dismissed by the court as an offshoot of religion with no grounding in science.
I think ID is handicapped by its grounding in the Christian faith which has indefensible illogical claims such as the creation of the Earth in one day and the existence of the heavens as a "place somewhere in the clouds".
So the defeat of ID in this case seems logical and appropriate. However, the claims of the Evolution camp are also not on a solid foundation. Here are my counter-arguments against Evolution and the Darwin-supporting presentation on Nova's website:
1. To Niles Eldredge's claim that "nothing has been learned since Darwin which contravenes Evolution", here is a simple statement: Evolution is contrary to the Law of Entropy which states that nature when left to itself shows increasing chaos or disorder. Evolution claims a progressive improvement - like primitive hearts in lower animals (like cockroaches where the venous and arterial blood mix) to advanced hearts in humans (where there is no mixing) - which runs contrary to the Law of Entropy, a foundation law in physics.
2. As for adjustments within a species - like the beak-size changes in Geospiza fortis - that is explainable by simple genetical inheritance from fitter individuals, like North America being populated by more whites than Native Americans circa 2000 A.D. The whites from Europe won and the natives lost. You don't have to subscribe to the evolution of species to explain that.
3. Just like one needs to dissociate ID from the illogical statements in the Bible, one must to separate Evolution from the tried-and-proven science of genetics which correctly explains things like how genes turning on and off give rise to cell specialization. It is a fallacy to decorate Evolution with the crystal-clear truth of genetic science which can be verified in the lab. Evolution has no automatic logical place in embryology.
4. The claim that "All animals including humans descend from a common ancestor" is very weak if it is based on identification of visual similarities between man and ape or between the similar gene sequences between yeast and the human being. Using the same evidence, one could plausibly argue that the similarities are like looking at different paintings from the same painter - some simple ones and other complex ones. One could argue that the similarities just show the signature style of the same unique painter, not that one led to the other.
5. The other major flaw with Evolution is that it does not explain why many of the old "primitive models" still survive, and do not go extinct by themselves completely when there are better ("more evolved") versions. Why does the ape survive if the human being is a much evolved (improved) version of the ape? Why do the yeast and bacteria survive to date when much more advanced versions are there to inhabit the earth?
A plausible non-evolutionary answer to the question can be that the "primitive models" or "simple paintings" like apes and yeast exist because there is a place for them in the inter-dependent world of nature and the food chain. That may be why a creator created them in the first place and It (the intelligent creator) is the intervention required to stay consistent with the Law of Entropy. This seems perfectly logical at least more so than Evolution (which is a alternative theory), even if it sounds sacrilegious to popular scientific belief today.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Vedas and the skeptical pursuit of Truth
Now that I've established the premise of modern science... it's time to look at faith..specifically that of the Vedas.
The credibility of modern scientific beliefs comes in no small measure from their openness to critical scrutiny. Books of religious faith, in contrast, normally allow no such liberties. [When the Bible says "In the beginning, God created..", the followers of the Bible do not humor the question "What was there before 'the beginning'?"]
That's one reason for me to be glad that science, not faith was the underpinning of my schooling.
The Vedic books, are perhaps the only books of faith that allow an individual to challenge and critique their wisdom.
Vedic scholars such as Swami Dayananda (1824-1883)- who is arguably the greatest champion of the Vedas and died for it - promote that before accepting any postulation from any belief system, the postulation should be skeptically integgorated.
Swami Dayananda laid down 5 tests of truth in the 3rd chapter of Satyartha Prakash :
1. (Accordance with) The Vedas and nature of God:
All that stands in conformity to the teachings of the Vedas and the nature and attributes of God is true; the reverse is not.
2. (Accordance with) Laws of Nature: All that tallies with the laws of nature is true and the reverse untrue.
3. (Accordance with) The practice and teaching of the pious, truthful, unprejudiced, honest and learned men/women.
4. (Accordance with) The purity and conviction of one's ownself or soul.
5. Eight kinds of evidence ("Pramanas"): Direct Perception, Inference, Analogy, Testimony, History, Deduction, Possibility and Negation.
The Satyartha Prakash says that ALL of the above 5 categories of tests should be used in concluding a fact as truth, not just one.
This is an amazing statement coming from a theosophical standpoint.
Accordance with "the laws of nature" opens the door for accepting Physics and the eight kinds of evidence open the door to Logical/Deductive Reasoning which underpins modern science. It immediately closes the door on assertions like giants swallowing the Earth or Sun (like the fabled Hanuman) or Medusa giving birth to a giant when her head was severed.
Wow for a theology!!
Let's test drive a couple of assertions.
A). France is a nation on the face of the Earth.
B). God created the Universe.
I could try to go to France and see for myself if it exists ("Direct Perception") but that is something I have never done.
So, if my little child asked me to prove France exists, how do I explain my conviction?
Well test#1 ,#2 and #4 cannot help me about the truth of assertion A but #3 and #5 can.
But the reason I believe France exists is because Test #3, and Test#5 (specifically Inference, Testimony and Deduction) support it for me. To buttonhole it for clarity:
-I have met people who claim to be from France. (Inference, Testimony)
-I have heard a language that owes alegiance to France. (Deduction)
-I have reason to believe that media is not lying when telling me about France. (Test #3, Testimony)
-I have seen pictures of France. (Testimony)
So the 5 tests of truth principle works.
What about assertion B? I'll make it the subject of my next post.
The credibility of modern scientific beliefs comes in no small measure from their openness to critical scrutiny. Books of religious faith, in contrast, normally allow no such liberties. [When the Bible says "In the beginning, God created..", the followers of the Bible do not humor the question "What was there before 'the beginning'?"]
That's one reason for me to be glad that science, not faith was the underpinning of my schooling.
The Vedic books, are perhaps the only books of faith that allow an individual to challenge and critique their wisdom.
Vedic scholars such as Swami Dayananda (1824-1883)- who is arguably the greatest champion of the Vedas and died for it - promote that before accepting any postulation from any belief system, the postulation should be skeptically integgorated.
Swami Dayananda laid down 5 tests of truth in the 3rd chapter of Satyartha Prakash :
1. (Accordance with) The Vedas and nature of God:
All that stands in conformity to the teachings of the Vedas and the nature and attributes of God is true; the reverse is not.
2. (Accordance with) Laws of Nature: All that tallies with the laws of nature is true and the reverse untrue.
3. (Accordance with) The practice and teaching of the pious, truthful, unprejudiced, honest and learned men/women.
4. (Accordance with) The purity and conviction of one's ownself or soul.
5. Eight kinds of evidence ("Pramanas"): Direct Perception, Inference, Analogy, Testimony, History, Deduction, Possibility and Negation.
The Satyartha Prakash says that ALL of the above 5 categories of tests should be used in concluding a fact as truth, not just one.
This is an amazing statement coming from a theosophical standpoint.
Accordance with "the laws of nature" opens the door for accepting Physics and the eight kinds of evidence open the door to Logical/Deductive Reasoning which underpins modern science. It immediately closes the door on assertions like giants swallowing the Earth or Sun (like the fabled Hanuman) or Medusa giving birth to a giant when her head was severed.
Wow for a theology!!
Let's test drive a couple of assertions.
A). France is a nation on the face of the Earth.
B). God created the Universe.
I could try to go to France and see for myself if it exists ("Direct Perception") but that is something I have never done.
So, if my little child asked me to prove France exists, how do I explain my conviction?
Well test#1 ,#2 and #4 cannot help me about the truth of assertion A but #3 and #5 can.
But the reason I believe France exists is because Test #3, and Test#5 (specifically Inference, Testimony and Deduction) support it for me. To buttonhole it for clarity:
-I have met people who claim to be from France. (Inference, Testimony)
-I have heard a language that owes alegiance to France. (Deduction)
-I have reason to believe that media is not lying when telling me about France. (Test #3, Testimony)
-I have seen pictures of France. (Testimony)
So the 5 tests of truth principle works.
What about assertion B? I'll make it the subject of my next post.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Strengths and Weaknesses of Modern Science. Part 4 - Concluding thoughts
[Continuing the theme of my previous 3 logs..]
Modern Science has served us well to explain how things work, though major questions remain in the realm of the Universe, Physics and the Living World and Evolution. In some cases logic itself seems to break down - particularly when the cause and effect question is surrendered in acceptance of the perennial existence (conservation) of Matter and Energy.
All the same, a lot is owed to modern science. It has lifted millions out of the misery of diseases like malaria, cholera, yellow fever and the like, made mass communication possible and helped us manage our lives better, not to mention live longer.
Where modern science has not shone as much, is in explaining the "WHY" part - the motivation behind facts that have been observed and attributed to laws. Why did the universe come into being? Why is evolution guided by a principle of improving living beings (contrary to law of entropy)? Why does an abstract thing called the 'mind' affect the body ? and so on.
Then there are the "eternal questions of faith and philosophy": Is there a creator or governor of this universe? Why are the laws of physics so? Why is there such a thing as a negative charge and a positive charge? Why do masses exert a pull on each other (gravity)? Are our actions also governed by laws ("you reap what you sow")? Are there other universes?
The last question is actually a question of science now, not just a philosophical question as people of science ponder about 'white holes' (with black holes seemingly abundant esp. at the center of galaxies) , the quirky concepts of string theory and the mystery of Dark Energy.
With this backdrop and inventory of science, we'll seek to examine the statements of the Vedas and how they stand the scrutiny of modern science.
Modern Science has served us well to explain how things work, though major questions remain in the realm of the Universe, Physics and the Living World and Evolution. In some cases logic itself seems to break down - particularly when the cause and effect question is surrendered in acceptance of the perennial existence (conservation) of Matter and Energy.
All the same, a lot is owed to modern science. It has lifted millions out of the misery of diseases like malaria, cholera, yellow fever and the like, made mass communication possible and helped us manage our lives better, not to mention live longer.
Where modern science has not shone as much, is in explaining the "WHY" part - the motivation behind facts that have been observed and attributed to laws. Why did the universe come into being? Why is evolution guided by a principle of improving living beings (contrary to law of entropy)? Why does an abstract thing called the 'mind' affect the body ? and so on.
Then there are the "eternal questions of faith and philosophy": Is there a creator or governor of this universe? Why are the laws of physics so? Why is there such a thing as a negative charge and a positive charge? Why do masses exert a pull on each other (gravity)? Are our actions also governed by laws ("you reap what you sow")? Are there other universes?
The last question is actually a question of science now, not just a philosophical question as people of science ponder about 'white holes' (with black holes seemingly abundant esp. at the center of galaxies) , the quirky concepts of string theory and the mystery of Dark Energy.
With this backdrop and inventory of science, we'll seek to examine the statements of the Vedas and how they stand the scrutiny of modern science.
A Quick Inventory of Modern Science. Part 3 - The living world
Continuing my inventory of modern scientific beliefs and boundaries(see Part I and Part II), here's Part III.
Living beings are the most complex and diverse creations and modern science has less firm a foundation in this domain than the Physics and Universe.
On The Living World:
- Modern scientific belief subscribes to the Darwininan theory which states that all living beings have evolved from primitive to progressively advanced forms. This is a theory based on deductive reasoning which is not quite on the same sure footing as the laws of motion because evolution cannot be observed for a fact. However, it is believed to be the most plausible theory.
- While modern scientific theory tries to explain that evolution is guided by the notion of survival of the fittest, it does not explain why the universe in its grand scheme seeks to improve the lot of the living being. As such, why does the notion of better and better species run contrary to the principle of increasing entropy ("disorder") in the universe ?
- Modern science believes that living being is fundamentally a chemical entity : a living body is a complex laboratory of matter in motion and transformation, managed by a computer called brain both voluntarily and involuntarily (involuntary like the central nervous system).
- In comparison to a computer, notions like 'Voluntary' and 'Involuntary' are hard to explain because volition pertains to 'thought' which is purely a concept (hard to explain) and these notions do not map to a computer's functioning. (A computer has no 'volition'). Modern Science is unable to answer the following questions well : If a thought manifests due to a series of neurons firing in the brain, what is the physical difference between a 'voluntary thought' versus an 'involuntary thought' ? Also, what is mind and the relationship between mind, brain and rest of the body?
- Modern science acknowledges the impact of thoughts or 'state of mind' on the body. 'Mind-body medicine' is not only recognized by the establishment, but a major therapeutic area.
Yet the concept and workings of the mind are not quite explained by physiology and run contrary to the grain of the scientific method as 'mind' is not a physically recognizable or measurable entity.
- Modern scientific belief postulates that all human actions are driven by the desire to fullfil human needs - mostly driven by the 'instinct' for survival, in accordance with the theory of evolution. The evolutionary theory accepted by Modern Science doesn't do well to explain why human beings sometimes act to sacrifice's one's own life for the benefit of others. Logically, sacrifice of one's own life for another/others would be a delusional act.
Living beings are the most complex and diverse creations and modern science has less firm a foundation in this domain than the Physics and Universe.
On The Living World:
- Modern scientific belief subscribes to the Darwininan theory which states that all living beings have evolved from primitive to progressively advanced forms. This is a theory based on deductive reasoning which is not quite on the same sure footing as the laws of motion because evolution cannot be observed for a fact. However, it is believed to be the most plausible theory.
- While modern scientific theory tries to explain that evolution is guided by the notion of survival of the fittest, it does not explain why the universe in its grand scheme seeks to improve the lot of the living being. As such, why does the notion of better and better species run contrary to the principle of increasing entropy ("disorder") in the universe ?
- Modern science believes that living being is fundamentally a chemical entity : a living body is a complex laboratory of matter in motion and transformation, managed by a computer called brain both voluntarily and involuntarily (involuntary like the central nervous system).
- In comparison to a computer, notions like 'Voluntary' and 'Involuntary' are hard to explain because volition pertains to 'thought' which is purely a concept (hard to explain) and these notions do not map to a computer's functioning. (A computer has no 'volition'). Modern Science is unable to answer the following questions well : If a thought manifests due to a series of neurons firing in the brain, what is the physical difference between a 'voluntary thought' versus an 'involuntary thought' ? Also, what is mind and the relationship between mind, brain and rest of the body?
- Modern science acknowledges the impact of thoughts or 'state of mind' on the body. 'Mind-body medicine' is not only recognized by the establishment, but a major therapeutic area.
Yet the concept and workings of the mind are not quite explained by physiology and run contrary to the grain of the scientific method as 'mind' is not a physically recognizable or measurable entity.
- Modern scientific belief postulates that all human actions are driven by the desire to fullfil human needs - mostly driven by the 'instinct' for survival, in accordance with the theory of evolution. The evolutionary theory accepted by Modern Science doesn't do well to explain why human beings sometimes act to sacrifice's one's own life for the benefit of others. Logically, sacrifice of one's own life for another/others would be a delusional act.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
A Quick Inventory of Modern Science. Part 2 - The Physics
Continuing my inventory of modern scientific beliefs and boundaries from Part I, here's Part II.
On Physics:
- The sum of Matter and Energy in the universe is a constant (principle of conservation of mass and energy). Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa but the sum of their equivalents is always constant. This essentially gives All Matter and Energy freedom from causality i.e. modern science does not entertain the question "Who created matter or energy?". It is causeless and this causelessness is an established corollary of the conservation principle.
- The 'laws of motion' attributed to Newton are fundamental established fact in an inertial frame of reference. The second law (F = m*a) does not hold at relativistic velocities (approaching light) when the mass of the object may change. The laws of motion explain 'classical' mechanics.
- The 'law of universal gravitation' also attributed to Sir Isaac is established.
- The laws of Quantum Physics which are essentially the laws of quantum mechanics are established at a microscopic (subatomic) level. The only fly in the ointment is that they do not explain gravity.
- The laws of classical and quantum mechanics assumed a non-dynamic time. This assumption makes sense if the velocities of the objects are small relative to light. When things go really fast, time itself slows down (time is dynamic) and the laws of classical and quantum mechanics
lose their foundation.
- The laws of classical and quantum mechanics also don't apply when gravity is so intense that space-time is too warped to have curvature . This is true at the center of many galaxies including our own where black holes have been found.
On Physics:
- The sum of Matter and Energy in the universe is a constant (principle of conservation of mass and energy). Matter can be converted to energy and vice versa but the sum of their equivalents is always constant. This essentially gives All Matter and Energy freedom from causality i.e. modern science does not entertain the question "Who created matter or energy?". It is causeless and this causelessness is an established corollary of the conservation principle.
- The 'laws of motion' attributed to Newton are fundamental established fact in an inertial frame of reference. The second law (F = m*a) does not hold at relativistic velocities (approaching light) when the mass of the object may change. The laws of motion explain 'classical' mechanics.
- The 'law of universal gravitation' also attributed to Sir Isaac is established.
- The laws of Quantum Physics which are essentially the laws of quantum mechanics are established at a microscopic (subatomic) level. The only fly in the ointment is that they do not explain gravity.
- The laws of classical and quantum mechanics assumed a non-dynamic time. This assumption makes sense if the velocities of the objects are small relative to light. When things go really fast, time itself slows down (time is dynamic) and the laws of classical and quantum mechanics
lose their foundation.
- The laws of classical and quantum mechanics also don't apply when gravity is so intense that space-time is too warped to have curvature . This is true at the center of many galaxies including our own where black holes have been found.
A Quick Inventory of Modern Science. Part 1 - The Universe
Before embarking on the journey of logging my evaluations of the Vedas, I am inclined to take stock of some fundamentals of modern science so that I may refer back to them in future log entries.
The underpinnings of modern science are hypothesis (based on gathering observable and measurable evidence), test, observation and analysis to compare observation with hypothesis.
The evidence must be subject to logical/mathematical reasoning.
Based on these principles some of the established beliefs and boundaries of modern science are as follows.
On the Universe and its Creation:
- The Universe as we know it was created with a Big Bang about 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years ago.
- It is unknown what the state of the universe or matter was there before this creation time.
- The age of the earth is 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%).
- The span of the Universe is increasing, in fact the expansion is accelerating.
- Modern science does not know what the universe is expanding into or what the known universe is contained in.
- The acceleration of the universe actually came as a shock to scientists in 1998 because the believers in the Big Bang theory assumed that the gravitation inherent in the mass of the universe would slow its expansion down. This has led to a postulation that there is a "Dark Energy" (not to be confused with Dark Matter) which is believed to pervade the vacuum of space but the source or logic of its existence cannot be explained. Hence the adjective of "Dark".
- All bets are off today about the prediction of the duration of existence the universe. It was hoped that the lifespan of the universe would be possible to deduce if the universe were slowing in its expansion - so that the deceleration (and subsequent contraction) owed to gravitation could be used to time the duration to return to initial state just before the Big Bang. The accelerating expansion has killed the application of this logic.
- Gravitation is the dominant force at the macro scale of the Universe, so much so that this dominance allows black holes to pull in even light.
- Modern Science does not explain why the Big Bang happened or how ALL matter could exist at 'one point' before the Big Bang.
The underpinnings of modern science are hypothesis (based on gathering observable and measurable evidence), test, observation and analysis to compare observation with hypothesis.
The evidence must be subject to logical/mathematical reasoning.
Based on these principles some of the established beliefs and boundaries of modern science are as follows.
On the Universe and its Creation:
- The Universe as we know it was created with a Big Bang about 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years ago.
- It is unknown what the state of the universe or matter was there before this creation time.
- The age of the earth is 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%).
- The span of the Universe is increasing, in fact the expansion is accelerating.
- Modern science does not know what the universe is expanding into or what the known universe is contained in.
- The acceleration of the universe actually came as a shock to scientists in 1998 because the believers in the Big Bang theory assumed that the gravitation inherent in the mass of the universe would slow its expansion down. This has led to a postulation that there is a "Dark Energy" (not to be confused with Dark Matter) which is believed to pervade the vacuum of space but the source or logic of its existence cannot be explained. Hence the adjective of "Dark".
- All bets are off today about the prediction of the duration of existence the universe. It was hoped that the lifespan of the universe would be possible to deduce if the universe were slowing in its expansion - so that the deceleration (and subsequent contraction) owed to gravitation could be used to time the duration to return to initial state just before the Big Bang. The accelerating expansion has killed the application of this logic.
- Gravitation is the dominant force at the macro scale of the Universe, so much so that this dominance allows black holes to pull in even light.
- Modern Science does not explain why the Big Bang happened or how ALL matter could exist at 'one point' before the Big Bang.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)