Julie Stahlhut
Posts: 46
Joined: July 2005
|
Brian, I'll be glad to respond. For the record: I'm a biologist whose specialty is insect behavioral and molecular ecology. (Ph.D. in 2002, and now a postdoc at Rochester.)
1) Living organisms arose from non-living matter by a purely natural mechanism that is well understood.
I'll rate this a 2. I think that we have plausible mechanisms for how living organisms can arise from non-living matter, but the key here is "well-understood".
2) All organisms alive today share common ancestry at some time in the remote past.
I'll rate this 7. The DNA evidence IMO is compelling.
3) All organisms alive today reached their modern form as a result of mechanisms that are well understood by science (e.g., mutation, natural selection, drift, and the other elements in the modern theory of evolution).
I'll also give this a 7. Time and again, we're able to obtain concordant evidence from DNA, morphology, ecology, and the fossil record.
4) Supernatural intervention has played no role in the development of living organisms as we see them today.
This is a 1, for one reason. The scientific method cannot answer this question. We can't use experiments or observation to study the role, of any, of the supernatural in evolution or developmental biology, any more than we can study its role in gravity or electromagnetism.
Of course, unless comments are included, this proposition and B8 have the biggest potential to mislead. Most, if not all, scientists would probably rate this as 1 or 2, for the same reason I stated above -- and the answer would be the same regardless of the scientist's religious beliefs. A reader who doesn't understand how and why this would be true is an ID charlatan's dream.
5) Supernatural forces are not required to account for the development of living organisms as we see them today.
I'll give this a 7, and the key words are "not required". While we living organisms are variable and complex, there's nothing about us that violates the laws of physics. I'm using absolutes like "nothing" in the sense that Stephen Jay Gould defined the word "fact"; it's something well-enough established that it would be "perverse to withhold provisional assent".
6) Human beings are related to other species.
Also a 7. Again, we have considerable molecular, morphological, and fossil evidence for this.
7) The physical form and behavior of human beings have been shaped by natural selection.
I'll give this a 6. My only quibble about giving it a 7 is that, in my opinion, much (though hardly all) of our behavior is shaped by cultural forces. It's also my opinion that our large brains and our behavioral flexibility are products of natural selection. They do, however, permit us to behave in ways that wouldn't be easy to predict using, say, fitness models.
8) Supernatural intervention played no role in the rise of human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses.
As with B4: Also a 1, because it's not testable by scientific means.
9) Supernatural forces are not required to account for human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses.
I'll split hairs much more than I did with B5, and give this a 4. In my opinion, these phenomena could occur by completely non-supernatural means. However, the human belief in these forces is common and very real, and has contributed considerably to cultural phenomena. The reason for my lowered score: I think most of the literature on these phenomena comes from humanities disciplines such as history. Were I more familiar with the social-sciences literature, I might rate it as being more highly supported.
10) Natural selection is responsible for the rise of human consciousness and culture, including moral and religious impulses.
I'll rate this a mere 3 -- see my response to B9. I think this question is only partly amenable to scientific study, taking more of a social-sciences than natural-sciences approach. For ethical and practical reasons, we obviously can't manipulate human behaviors to test this kind of thing, and I think it would be difficult to extrapolate it reliably from history alone.
Hope this helps,
-- Julie
|
