Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences

George (and whoever else is interested):

I have never denied for a moment that scientists do or should seek a
comprehensive theoretical vision.

I did not deny that evolutionary theory provides a comprehensive theoretical
vision of a sort for biologists.

What I am saying is that evolutionary theory provides a comprehensive
theoretical vision in a different way than do most comprehensive theories in
other scientific fields. It provides the sort of comprehensive theoretical
vision that a historical theory can provide.

Let me elaborate.

Take a look at your field, physics. Look at all the subfields of physics
that existed before the Big Bang theory. There was celestial mechanics.
There was ballistics. There was electromagnetic theory. There was nuclear
physics. Etc. Each of these fields has generated a great deal of empirical
knowledge about how the world works -- Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws and
Boyle's Law and the "right thumb rule" and the fact of radioactive
half-lives and the divisibility of the atom into smaller particles and the
ambiguous wave/particle behaviour of electromagnetic radiation and so on.
Each of these fields might also be said to have an overarching theory of
some sort: for celestial mechanics, Newton's laws (later modified and
adjusted by Laplace, etc.); for nuclear physics, the proton/neutron model of
the nucleus of the atom; etc. Note that all of these theories are
"ahistorical" theories. They are not about how atoms first appeared in the
universe, or about when and where the laws of celestial mechanics started
operating. The overarching theories in each of these earlier areas of
physics are not "origins" theories.

Now let's look at the Big Bang cosmology. In some sense it might be seen as
an overarching theory of all of physical nature, in that puts together
fundamental principles derived from nuclear physics, relativity,
gravitational theory, etc., to explain the origin of everything. But note
two things: (1) It is derived in a sense from the data and theoretical
achievements of those other theories -- the Big Bang is inferred because of
what we have learned from the other areas of physics (e.g. we know the
significance of the cosmic background radiation only because we know a great
deal about the causes and wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, and we
did not derive our knowledge of these things from the existence of the Big
Bang, but from years of experimental work here on earth); (2) The Big Bang
is a "historical" theory, i.e., a theory which purports to explain the
present configuration of all or part of the universe in terms of unique past
events.

What conclusion do I draw from this? (1) Suppose that somehow the Big Bang
theory were disproved tomorrow. (Invent any reason you find plausible.)
Would nuclear physics, relativity theory, electromagnetic theory, our
understanding of light and gravity and friction all grind to a halt, unable
to progress further? Or perhaps even lose their theoretical coherence
entirely? I would venture to guess that they would not. I would say that
the Big Bang theory is dependent upon them, and not the other way around.
Just as a Broadway musical might bomb, without endangering the future of
drama, dance or song, so the Big Bang theory could be wrong without
endangering most of the (non-cosmological) theory and practice of physics.
(I don't say that there would be *no* repercussions for the various fields,
but I don't think all research and teaching in most fields would have to
shut down because of the crisis.) (2) If the Big Bang theory collapsed, we
would lose our main understanding of the *origin* of the universe, but we
would not lose (for the most part) our understanding of the general laws by
which it was governed. We would still know vastly more about the actual
workings of nature than Aristotle knew, or Aquinas knew, or Newton knew, or
even Laplace and Lavoisier knew. We would lose the greatest part of our
"historical" knowledge of the universe, but only a very small part of our
ahistorical knowledge of the universe.

Now, let's move to biology and Darwinian evolution. Think of all the
subfields of biology: cell biology, molecular biology, ecology, botany,
zoology, physiology (plant, animal, etc.), genetics, paleontology,
evolutionary biology, etc. Now of these fields, only two are *inherently*
(as opposed to essentially) connected with evolutionary theory --
paleontology, and evolutionary biology itself. These two areas of biology
are *inherently* historical; all of the other areas of biology are, at least
in principle, capable of being conducted in an ahistorical manner, as
electromagnetic theory, atomic theory, etc. are conducted. So one can study
all the parts of the cell, their structures and functions and interactions;
one can study the molecular biology that lies behind inheritance, in terms
of chemical operations governed by eternal laws of charge, attraction and
repulsion; one can study ecology in terms of qualitative and quantitative
relationships between predator and prey, competing predators, competing
plant species, alteration of ecosystems due to changes in global
temperature. In all these cases we can learn a huge amount about nature
without knowing how it (cells, genomes or ecosystems) came to be.

Of course, we can then borrow information and insights from all of the
different subfields of biology, and synthesize them into a historical theory
of biological origins, e.g., Darwinian evolution. That theory would then
serve as an overarching theory of biology in the same sense that the Big
Bang theory would serve as an overarching theory of physics, integrating
many of the results by projecting various mechanisms back in time toward an
origin point (in the case of biology, the origin of life itself), and
providing a "history of life". There would thus be a parallel between
macroevolutionary theory and the Big Bang. But note again: (1) If
macroevolution were proved false tomorrow (Cambrian rabbits, or whatever it
would take in your eyes to disprove it), huge portions of the biological
subsciences would survive, in whole or in part. Paleontology would be
severely damaged, and evolutionary biology itself would be ruined; but most
fields would carry on fine, having a solid base of knowledge and
experimental methods even without evolution as an overarching narrative.
The study of cells would go on -- there are still all kinds of things we
don't know about the function of the various organelles in a cell. The
study of genetics would go on -- there are still millions of knockout
experiments waiting to be performed, so that we can determine what each
little piece of DNA is doing. The study of embryology would go on -- we
still are far from having a complete account of the formation of a human
body in the womb. The study of ecology would go on -- we still have only a
sketchy idea of the true complexity of ecological interactions. Etc. (2)
We would lose our understanding of origins, i.e., a historical
understanding, but we would not lose all our ahistorical understanding of
how living nature works. We would not even lose the majority of it.

What am I driving at? It is this: the proper parallel is *not* between
macroevolutionary theory and Newton's laws, or the germ theory of disease,
or atomic theory, or any of the other theories with which Ken Miller and
others have compared with Darwin's. The proper parallel would be between
macroevolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory. Both are historical
theories. Both draw upon knowledge gained from various subfields (of
biology and physics). Both could be falsified without destroying most of
the knowledge of nature accumulated by the various subfields. Their
falsification would have some important consequences, but science would not
grind to a halt in either biology or physics. In some fields of biology and
physics, the loss would not even be noticed.

On the other hand, if, as I said before, it could be proved that there was
no such thing as atoms (I have no idea how it could be proved, but say that
it could), what would happen to science? The entire chemistry curriculum
from elementary grades through grad school is predicated on the existence of
atoms. Chemistry would become unintelligible, hence no longer a science,
but merely a series of pragmatic recipes for cooking substances. And
without atoms, and hence without electrons with rising and falling energy
levels, how would we explain electromagnetic radiation? Where does it come
from? And how would we explain friction? Etc. Physics would thus also be
unintelligible. Biology too would be unintelligible, since it depends upon
understanding macromolecules which are presumed to be made up of atoms.

The inference I draw is this: overarching theories of an *ahistorical*
nature -- theories of gravity, light, electromagnetism, atoms, molecular
biology and so on -- cannot be overthrown without causing life-threatening
damage to at least one major subfield of science. Overarching theories of a
*historical* nature -- Big Bang, Steady State, Darwinian macroevolution --
can be overthrown without life-threatening damage to any subfield of
science -- except those subfields which are directly built upon that
historical theory. The difference in "amount of damage caused" is due to
the derivative and secondary nature of historical theories.

Final restatement:

Am I arguing that scientists should therefore eschew historical theorizing?
Not at all. But the proponents of particular historical theories, whether
Big Bang or Darwinian macroevolution, should not declare in alarmist tones
that if their theory is challenged, all of science is on the line, that
obscurantism and religious fanaticism will win and that America will sink
into medieval backwardness and poverty, overwhelmed by the superior science
of the Japanese and Europeans and Chinese and others who accept these
historical theories. That is simply hyperbole. I don't know whether the
people who employ this hyperbole actually believe it (in which case they
reveal astoundingly bad practical judgment) or whether they are deliberately
exaggerating for partisan purposes (i.e., are not being scientifically
honest). Either way, such hyperbole should be rejected.

Am I saying that science should rest satisfied with scattered bits of
empirical knowledge, and not try to build up a coherent picture? Not at
all. Newtonian dynamics built up such a coherent picture. It did not
depend at all on the historical truth of the Big Bang theory. Atomic theory
(Dalton, Lavoisier, Mendeleev, Bohr, etc.) built up such a coherent theory.
It did not depend at all on the historical truth of the Big Bang theory.
The germ theory of disease established a large, coherent picture of the
nature, spread and control of disease. It did not depend upon the
historical truth of evolutionary theory. Molecular biology has now built up
an impressive and coherent theory of the activities of the cell, which does
not depend upon the historical truth of evolutionary theory. Etc. Large
and coherent views of nature there can be, and must be, in science. But to
use that truth to give Darwinian macroevolution a free pass is to abuse a
good principle. There is no reason that Darwinian theory must be doggedly
maintained *merely* because it is the only overarching historical theory
that biology has. Even if biology had to go for a time without an
overarching *historical* theory, the individual subsciences of biology could
do quite well with *ahistorical* overarching theories. About the historical
origins of life and species, I for one am quite willing to remain a patient
agnostic. I'm in no hurry to decide what drives evolution. I'd much rather
have a far better understanding of the everyday mechanics of this
phenomenon -- life -- of which evolution is supposed to be the grand
historical explanation. I see that as the primary task of biology. (Just
as I see the primary task of physics as to lay out the laws by which the
universe is governed, not to explain the origin of the universe.)

Footnote: our modern concern with "history" itself has a history. The
notion that we can understand something only when we know its historical
origins is not a notion that has been held at all times and places. Plato
and Aristotle were uninterested in historical explanations for phenomena.
So were the medievals, and most of the early modern philosophers and
scientists. Our current infatuation with "history" dates from about the
18th century. Prior to that time, history was thought to be the realm of
the unique, the accidental, the merely contingent; and it was believed that
of merely contingent events there could be no scientific (universal,
generalizable) knowledge. Thus, two notions which have been at various
times almost deified by the academic and scientific worlds, the notion of
"scientific history" (which the German historians pushed hard for in the
19th century) and the notion of "historical sciences" (evolutionary theory,
etc.) would have been oxymorons, unintelligible to most of the learned men
of all times and places prior to the European Enlightenment. Does this
prove anything? Maybe not, but I think it is food for thought.

Cameron.

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
To: "Merv Bitikofer" <mrb22667@kansas.net>; "Dennis Venema"
<Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>
Cc: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>; "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences

>A lot of physicists & chemists could do their work without any reference to
>the theoretical frameworks of relativity or quantum mechanics, so the
>contrast with biology isn't all that dramatic. But this isn't the most
>serious misunderstanding here. The real question should be whether or not
>we're interested in finding any approximation to a comprehensive truth
>about the physical world. If we are, large theories like relativity &
>quantum mechanics are needed. & if our understanding is to include
>biological phenomena and the history of life on earth, evolution with
>natural selection as its primary mechanism is the best theory we currently
>have. Downplaying its significance because a person can work on some
>limited class of biological phenomena without referring to it shows
>ignorance of what science is all about.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 30 01:24:19 2009