Scientists studying the icy giant exoplanet Neptune, one of the largest bodies in the solar system, discovered a stunning new form of life. But rather than dwelling on the implications of the finding (which, again, was stunning), The New York Times ran a story questioning whether there even was any such life, or, more to the point, whether we should be surprised by the discovery at all. One of the Times’ contributors, Lawrence Krauss, thinks life begins when, for reasons best known to our own species, “answering the universe’s call.” We behave as we do because we have some desire, expectations or fears, and we want to act as if we should be allowed to act as we do. As Krauss put it, “we are not awe-inspiring beings because we are smarter than chimpanzees. We are awe-inspiring beings because we are more intelligent than chimps.” What Krauss doesn’t mention, however, is that if he wanted to doubt the existence of life, he would not want to be the one to find it.
The same is true of many other scientists. For instance, E.O. Wilson, who proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection decades ago, told Science magazine last year that he has “no empirical evidence of such life.” (Of course, what we might call “transparent life” and what evolution by natural selection might call it is much more difficult to divine.) This consensus, Krauss told his colleagues, led him to dismiss the “exoplanet-based natural selection hypothesis.” In other words, by proving that evolution is Darwinian (as opposed to a non-Darwinian version) he thereby undermined the case for natural selection as a mechanism by which life originated. Krauss, who literally has a billion years of evolutionary theory behind him, apparently doesn’t believe we can ever really be certain of anything.
Elsewhere, those in the pro-life movement have tried to dismiss the discovery of a fetus possessing a beating heart and brain by arguing that the fetus in question is merely a ball of cells, a synapse of neurons. As Wilson put it, natural selection doesn’t just distribute goods and services randomly; rather, it tends to give preference to some groups over others, and other species are not treated with the same favor. Is that what he has in mind here?
This breathtakingly naive view of evolution, taught by many members of the intelligentsia, obscures the real purpose of Darwin’s theory. He thought that evolution would yield not just material improvements in the present, but the knowledge needed to defeat the ultimate foe — that is, God — as well.
The same is true of many other scientists. For instance, E.O. Wilson, who proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection decades ago, told Science magazine last year that he has “no empirical evidence of such life.” (Of course, what we might call “transparent life” and what evolution by natural selection might call it is much more difficult to divine.) This consensus, Krauss told his colleagues, led him to dismiss the “exoplanet-based natural selection hypothesis.” In other words, by proving that evolution is Darwinian (as opposed to a non-Darwinian version) he thereby undermined the case for natural selection as a mechanism by which life originated. Krauss, who literally has a billion years of evolutionary theory behind him, apparently doesn’t believe we can ever really be certain of anything.
Elsewhere, those in the pro-life movement have tried to dismiss the discovery of a fetus possessing a beating heart and brain by arguing that the fetus in question is merely a ball of cells, a synapse of neurons. As Wilson put it, natural selection doesn’t just distribute goods and services randomly; rather, it tends to give preference to some groups over others, and other species are not treated with the same favor. Is that what he has in mind here?
This breathtakingly naive view of evolution, taught by many members of the intelligentsia, obscures the real purpose of Darwin’s theory. He thought that evolution would yield not just material improvements in the present, but the knowledge needed to defeat the ultimate foe — that is, God — as well.
Comments
Post a Comment