This was an interview with Neil DeGrasse Tyson director of the Hayden Planetarium and covers a lot of the issues that we've been debating in the ID / Evolution threads Its long so I'm going to post a few exerpts but recommend reading the article at the link. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7159345/ Einstein and Darwin: A tale of two theories Q&A with ‘Origins’ astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson SEATTLE - One scientist came up with a new way of explaining how biology works. A generation later, the other one came up with a new way of explaining how physics works. Today, after a century of scrutiny, both explanations still pretty much hold up. But in popular culture, physicist Albert Einstein is idolized, while biologist Charles Darwin's legacy is clouded with controversy. Why do Darwin's theories on the origin of species, put forth in 1859, hold a status so different from that of Einstein's theories on relativity, published between 1905 and 1916? Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of New York's Hayden Planetarium and co-author of the book "Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution," reflected on that question during a recent interview at the University of Washington. "Biology doesn’t do that. Chemistry doesn’t do that. You can predict reactions, yes. You can get an understanding of how things work, yes. Darwin’s theory of evolution is a framework by which we understand the diversity of life on Earth. But there is no equation sitting there in Darwin’s “Origin of Species” that you apply and say, “What is this species going to look like in 100 years or 1,000 years?” Biology isn’t there yet with that kind of predictive precision. So, when we speak of the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution, they are each extremely important ways of understanding the world. But the tool kit that comes with the relativity theory, that comes with any physics theory, has a level of precision that puts it just in another category. It’s not simply an organizing principle. ... For that reason, Darwin’s theory of evolution, because it’s a theory of biology, because biology is a different kind of science from physics, it looks to the outsider as if you can just jump in and claim that things are just not what the biologist sees them to be. Now of course that’s false, but I’m just submitting to you that when you have your tool kit of predictive powers, that’s kind of like an armor at the perimeter. You’re not going to get past that to say that somehow that equation is wrong. The equation is demonstrably correct, so go home. ... So things were changing rapidly back then, from burning Bruno at the stake, to putting Galileo under house arrest, to modern days, with the Catholic Church issuing statements saying evolution’s OK. So history has shown that some theistically based belief systems have been able to adapt to the prevailing discoveries of science. Those that don’t will be left behind. And if you’re left behind, you become disenfranchised from the forces that control emerging economies. We’re in the 21st century. The emerging economies are going to be scientifically and technologically driven. We’re not agrarian anymore. What were the consequences in the mid-1800s of saying you didn’t believe Darwin? There weren’t any, really. But today, with biotech companies, there is no understanding of biology without the theory of evolution. And so if you say, ‘I don’t believe the theory of evolution, I think we were all specially created,’ you must understand the consequences of it to your own employability. ... Yes. And I would add this, just to nip this argument over “theories” in the bud: Until Einstein, all tested, confirmed physical theories were labeled laws. There’s Newton’s three laws of motion … the laws of gravity … the laws of thermodynamics. When Einstein came along, he showed that Newton was incomplete — not wrong, but incomplete, describing just a subset of reality. Einstein showed that a deeper understanding was required to account for this reality. At that point, physicists – I think not even consciously, just sort of subconsciously – stopped calling things “laws.” ... Now, the word “theory” is also used to describe ideas that are very tentative. That’s true. So now we’re stuck with a problem: We’ve got evolutionary theory, quantum theory, all very well tested and very well established – and now we’ve got somebody’s theory on the frontier of the science, that will probably be shown to be wrong, because most fresh theories are wrong. But they keep you investigating. You’re hacking through the brush and bramble, trying to make a clearing where you understand what’s going on. There’s an unfortunate mismatch in the way scientists use the word “theory” and the public’s interpretation of the word, as applied to these century-old understandings of the world. So that’s unfortunate. But what the public needs to understand is, there is nothing more powerful than successful theories. They organize ideas in ways that grant you a power of understanding that is without equal in any system of human thought that has ever come before. ... The issue of precision simply distinguishes Einstein from Darwin. I think that alone is not what accounts for the resistance that we see in the various communities. Most of what Einstein said and did has no direct impact on what anybody reads in the Bible. Special relativity, his work in quantum mechanics, nobody even knows or cares. Where Einstein really affects the Bible is the fact that general relativity is the organizing principle for the Big Bang. That’s where it affects origin science, and then you have the religious community reacting to that. Going back to the analogue with Copernican systems, I think it’s a matter of time. The world fully accepted the heliocentric model long before Newton came out with his laws of gravity and laws of motion. Copernicus’ book was 1543. Newton was 1687, OK? That’s 130 years. Now it’s been 130 years since Darwin. So you have to ask, what is your measure of this resistance? Is it most of the world? No, it’s not most of the world that’s resisting this. It’s a small subset of the world. One might even say the holdouts. But they need to understand that their counterparts in the past were no less passionate about their objection to a scientific discovery as people objecting to the sun going around the earth or vice versa."
Wasn't this the guy on the Colbert Report? He's intelligent and well spoken. I'll have to check out this book of his. edit: Amazon link to book
Like I wrote in the other thread, evolution is a very flexible term. Most ID proponents or even creationists will not argue over evolution in the microscale...which most biotech companies would be heavily focused upon. Darwin only put what he saw and then gave a great explaination...never elucidated the why. Mendel gave a why, but didn't come to the same conclusion as Darwin or was even in the same ballpark. The current debate has lumped NeoDarwinism (the bridging of mendelian inheritance and Darwin's observations) into what Darwin supposedly wrote. It's like arguing that our founding fathers supported the right to privacy because judicial review said it the Constitution as so. He could change current ME with ID: ID is not wrong...but incomplete.... ID doesn't disprove Darwin. It's attempting to revise his children.... Not to sound snobby, but having a physicist comment on Evolution is almost like having a statistician claiming to be a skeptical environmentalist.
Actually, this does seem a little snobbish. After all, was Mr. Tyson simply commenting just about Evolution or was he more or less comparing the different sciences (physics vs biology), how their methods differ, and how this could explain why the general public may find it easier to accept a physics theory vs. a biology theory. So I ask you, what sort of expert would be best to comment on and compare the sciences? Wouldn't a scientist be good enough? I mean, it wasn't like his purpose was to argue for the validity of one theory over the other. In fact, he accepts both theories as valid. He was commenting more on social acceptance of those scientific theories. So if he over-stepped his boundary of expertise at all it's in discussing sociology - but then I don't think he overstepped there either as his comments were about science vs social perception - something that should be a concern for any scientist.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml I never realized 55% of people (who believe in creationism /out evolution) would be considered a "small subset of the world". Granted these polls are for the US only, but it surely doesn't include the religious remainder of the world.
Mr. Tyson isn't simply commenting on Evolution, his book "Origins" has the implication that reductionist Evolution goes hand in hand with the physical formation of our galaxy. He has credibility to assert that giant globs of particles coalesced through gravity to form stars and planets, but his public commentary is also asserting that the formation of the single cell is apparent from Darwin. Like I wrote before, Darwin never gave much detail into the how, and it took great minds several decades later to build upon Darwin's principles. One group formulated the origin theory of life which formed the "irreducible complexity" critics, but that theory isn't heavily agreed upon by all scientists. Mr. Tyson is choosing a side based on his biases, which is alright, but he's referencing the almighty Darwin to back up his claims. It makes the title of the article disingenuous. My "snobbiness" comes from him reasserting evolutionary misconceptions to promote his stature in physics. Sure, the reporter asked him the question, but Mr. Tyson isn't ready to spend hours with a reporter to explain how his Origins book would be neatly fit into other macroevlutionary origin theories. The guy has a book to sell.
I understand you may have a problem with his book, but as far as the above article, I don't see how he over-stepped in the answers he gave to the question(s) posed.
Perhaps a different Mr. Tyson would think so too: Following his rationale, he's still an outsider. Or does being a man of science qualify him to publicly comment on other fields? How can he reliably claim that "the equation" is demonstratibly correct if he should've went home in the first place? Because he mentioned some great scientists to promote his reasons? With the quote in mind, either he's blindly following the words of some biologists, or he's making his own conclusion without any credibility.
I didn't take that comment the same way you did. Earlier in the piece, he said Biology in general (and Darwin's theory in particular) lacked what he called "predictive precision" because "there is no equation" that will predict "What is this species going to look like in 100 years or 1,000 years?" Then he said "But the tool kit that comes with the relativity theory, that comes with any physics theory, has a level of precision that puts it just in another category. It’s not simply an organizing principle." So, consider the context of the interview in which he was asked why he thought the general public found it easier to accept Einstein's theory (physics) vs Darwin's theory (biology). His answer was bacicly this: in physics you're able to convincingly validate your theory with predictive precision through the use of equations (his physics toolkit); with biology and Darwin's theory in particular, you don't have such a toolkit - no predictive precision, no powerful equations. So without this predictive precision, an "outsider...can just jump in and claim that things are just not what the biologist sees them to be." Whereas with physics "you have your tool kit of predictive powers, that’s kind of like an armor at the perimeter. You’re not going to get past that to say that somehow that equation is wrong. The equation is demonstrably correct, so go home." The way he said it might be a little confusing, but if you read what he said before, you'll understand that (when he mentioned "tool kit of predictive powers" and "equation") he was clearly talking about physics, because he clearly does not believe that precisely predictive equations even exist to validate Evolution.
Wigman has already answered some of these points but here's dos pesos. Tyson addresses this very issue in the article by pointing out how scientific theories are never truly complete so Newton's laws described the physical universe well but not completely so Einstein came along with Relativity which describes them better but still not completely since at the quantum level it breaks down. In that since Evolution as Darwin saw it wasn't complete since things like genes and mutagens were poorly understood at his time along with the dating technologies that we have now for fossils. Since then we're seeing new evidence and theories that flesh out the theory further. In regard to ID whether ID completes Darwini or not is very open to debate, since as some ID propenents note there are many ID hypothesis. Alien tampering along the lines of 2001 would add a lot to Darwinian Evolution but straigt up Biblical Creationism would overturn Darwin completely. Wigman addressed this but I would say he's addressing things in term of understanding the scientific method and that while there are different toolkits for physics and biology they are both driven by the scientific method. Yes he agrees with Evolution obviously but I don't think he's putting himself as an expert but that since he agrees with the methodology he believes that to be true. That's the main reason why I posted this article since the latest D & D ID / Evolution debate has been regarding the nature of science.
Tyson later claims that we need these fleshed out new theories in order for the American public to stay competitive scientifically. It's a public assumption that Americans would stay behind should there be a course change...as if high school science is the end all in higher education...as if we'd trash all our knowledge of previous macroevolutionary theories at some youth rally's bonfire. So you're allowed to dismiss one branch of ID, creationalism, (therefore dismissing it entirely) while assuming NeoDarwinism (as misconstrued Darwinism) on the whole is not open to debate? Fair enough. But what makes the origin theory of Macroevolution different philosophically than String Theory? Darwin's theory = fantastic The others who are trying to bridge current observations with an origin = questionable Questionability is great for science. Heck, even if switching to ID is as miserable a failure as the Prohibition movement was, science will still move ahead. So what's the motivation behind prominent scientists taking public stances on matters outside their fields?
To a certain extent I agree with you on this that high school science isn't an end all but at the same time highshool science is the last time that many americans ever do study biology. My main problem with teaching ID, especially what the Kansas school board is proposing, is that its watering down and confusing the nature of science itself by saying that science isn't solely dealing with natural phenomena and naturalistics explanations. I think some ID proponents might disagree with you on this like Grizzled who's argued very forcefully that ID isn't entirely about Creationism. Anyway I was responding to your statement that ID is meant to complete Darwin not overturn it: I don't see how a Creationist argument, God created Earth and all life on Earth in 7 days, wouldn't overturn Darwin. Finally where did I state or even imply at all that Darwinian Evolution or NeoDarwinism a term that I haven't even used, isn't open to debate? Because it is possible to test it to a higher degree of reliability. What's the point of us even voicing an opinion or arguing about it hear on the D & D. Dr. Tyson is entitled to voice his opinion about Evolution as much as he is about how Yao Ming is going do this year. I agree he's not an expert on biology or Evolution but he does have some expertise on the Scientific Method and how ideas become scientific theories.
IMO Natural Science classes are watered down as it is. Who here who took public school didn't have one of their NS classes taught by a coach? I'm only saying it could possibly be for all we know. Can't dismiss something outright without any proof. Yeah, aliens can come down the next day and tell us that we're both wrong. I'd have no problem with that. I'm assuming you're defending Tyson's position and that (from what his book) is what he's selling. The origin theory of Macroevolution? Sure, we've found amino acids in space. Created said amino acids from base chemicals in a lab. Do the Rockets officially win after playing a great 10 first possesions? Because the point of putting his name here is to put some credibility in the stance he promotes. If it was just an opinion, neither of us would've bothered to respond as much as we already have. His examples are great. I'm not sure it'd have the same weight if I transcribed Larry the Transient's bar room philisophies and posted it on here with Mr. Tyson's same points in mind.
True but that doesn't mean we should water it down more. I would have no problem with it and personally would love it if the aliens came down and said we were wrong since I'm a sci-fi nerd. That said I was responding to a narrow point whether ID could be considered an effort to revise or complete Darwinian Evolution. As I said some ID hypotheses might and some wouldn't. It doesn't mean that I categorically rule any of them out. It is possibly that the Earth and all life was created in 7 days. The empiracal evidence says that's highly unlikely but unless we can go back to the beginning of time it can't be ruled out as being absolutely impossible. I agree with him to a large extent but I haven't read his book yet so I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm defending all of his positions. I would prefer to think of it as he is defending my positions. We've found fossils that appear to be showing transitions of many species from one form to another, we've got dating techonology showing that those fossils are roughly chronological in most cases, we've got DNA evidence showing relationships indicating possible descent from common ancestos among species, we know as a fact from microevolution (another term that I'm hesitant to use myself) that organism can undergo morphological and genetic change when subject to mutagens or changing enviroments, and we're able to produce computer simulations showing that organisms can change when subjected to selective stresses but you know all of this already. String Theory can't be proven to anywhere near this level of relibility since such evidence as other dimensions has no way of even being detected so String Theory can never be subject to testing and must rely purely on mathematical modelling. For Evolution though as I've said before I don't consider it completely proven its proven to a much higher degree of reliability and has even been able to be predicative and we can even conduct predicative experiments on it. That's a lot more than can be said for String Theory or ideas about ID. For what its worth I'm one of those who is hesitant about calling String Theory a scientific theory. Its logical and systematic but not falsifiable. Given the quality of some of the posts here on the D & D I don't think Larry the Transient's philosophies would be out of place or less relevant.
