Flint
Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Some of these questions are as hazy as "how high is up?" or "Is it colder in the North or in the Winter?" And this is a Bad Thing when we're assigning numbers, because the numbers can then be manipulated (finding averages, etc.) without regard to the fact that they don't necessarily mean anything.
So I'm going to approach this a bit differently. Questions about the supernatural are simply not accessible to science, rendering any numerical response nonsensical. For questions 4, 5, 8 and 9, it's simply not possible to assign a number that says anything comprehensible. They could all be given a "1" (no scientific support) or a "7" (overwhelming support) and either response could be equally justified!
So let's try to clarify: the supernatural lies outside the competence of science. Science is simply *not capable* of saying *anything* about the supernatural. Anything AT ALL. And this means ANY number assigned to these questions is fundamentally meaningless and dishonest.
Now, on to the questions themselves:
1) Living organisms arose from non-living matter by a purely natural mechanism that is well understood. I'd also give this a value of 2. Some possible (i.e. plausible according to the known rules of chemistry) mechanisms have been proposed, and some possible very early precursor protocell structures have been created. But it's important to note that how the first life DID happen may simply not be knowable. I wouldn't be surprised if scientists were to discover several different mechanisms that would have been sufficient, but we'll never know which (if any) happened.
2) All organisms alive today share common ancestry at some time in the remote past I think the evidence here merits a full 7. Yes, it's possible that multiple lineages arose early on, but all seem to have joined the main trunk of the tree of life at some point.
3) All organisms alive today reached their modern form as a result of mechanisms that are well understood by science I'd give this one a 6. The mechanisms currently identified are well understood, but I think it's an error to believe that ALL mechanisms have been identified. I'd state as a matter of principle that we can *never* confidently claim we've nailed them all.
4) N/A
5) N/A. We can't even define what supernatural means. However, we can be pretty confident that the mechanisms currently understood are sufficient, and no supernatural component (whatever that might mean) is required. Whether one was *involved* is not knowable to science.
6) Human beings are related to other species. 7. No question here.
7) The physical form and behavior of human beings have been shaped by natural selection. 7. After all, "form and behavior" essentially describe ALL organisms.
8) N/A
9) Supernatural forces are not required to account for human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses. N/A. Here, we're talking about the process of elimination - the idea being that if we could fully account for consciousness and culture without ringing in anything "supernatural", we could squeeze out any supernatural requirement. Again, this is like question 5). Until we can have some notion what supernatural means in practice, how can we know if it's required?
10) Natural selection is responsible for the rise of human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses. This question is not possible to answer meaningfully with a number. First, we need to define "moral and religious impulses." Until we know what these things ARE, we can't know what causes them. And I personally think reasonable people could argue forever over such a definition. No matter HOW we define these things, it's going to be possible to argue that they don't even exist.
But let's say people DO have "religious impulses" (I admit I don't feel any. What would one seem like?). Perhaps it would be most meaningful to say that whatever people do or think is an emergent property of how people are physically constructed. From this view, since natural selection is largely responsible for the evolution of all organisms, everything about those organisms is at least partially the result of natural selection.
But the danger with question 10) is that it seems to have a nodding acquaintence with "social Darwinism" and this is a dangerous error.
So here's a metaphor. Think of natural selection as having provided us with an easel, a canvas, and an extensive palette of colored paints. We each use these tools to paint a picture. Are the materials "responsible" for the picture? In a sense, yes of course. But in another sense, the picture itself is more than some mixture of paints on canvas - it has an emergent MEANING entirely independent of the materials that compose it. That meaning doesn't lie in the paint, it lies in the mind of whoever interprets the pattern.
And in this sense, culture and moral and religious impulses are *projections*, interpretations imposed on perceived patterns not inherent in the patterns, but only in the interpretations. Natural selection only enables these things; it's responsibility extends no further.
|
