What's the point?

Life on Earth evolved from simple organisms, to the stage where the brain – the most complex organ of all – has been developed. The human brain may well be the most complex structure in the universe, but is it an inevitable by-product of biological evolution? Given that life can start on a planet, is there a biological "ladder of progress" inevitably and inexorably leading to the development of intelligence, cognition and consciousness, and thus technological civilizations?
Darwinism and natural selection tell us that nature does not plan ahead; mutations occur randomly and are selected for their survival value at that particular time. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins likens nature to a blind watchmaker; blind because it does not see ahead, and has no pre-defined purpose in view. Dawkins writes: "... Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning." So, according to this line of reasoning, humanity’s existence is a result of mere chance.

Some biologists and philosophers look to the concept of convergent evolution – i.e. different evolutionary paths leading to the same features, e.g. eyes, legs, wing – to show that the result of evolution is not pure chance … that there must be a purpose to life. Convergent evolution is hardly surprising when one considers that millions of species on Earth are exposed to the same selective conditions – so similar solutions emerge time and time again. However, as Jared Diamond points out in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee, some traits do not evolve convergently – i.e. convergent evolution is not universal. Diamond takes the example of woodpeckers that are able to excavate into live wood for food or nest sites, and appear to be the only species that has evolved to do this. No other species – e.g. parrots, honeyeaters, possums – can excavate live wood. And just as woodpeckers are the only species to have exploited a particular niche, only one species in the billions that have ever existed in the 4.6 billion year history of the Earth has ever developed human intelligence and consciousness. He goes on to say: "Earth’s really successful species have instead been dumb and clumsy rats and beetles, who found better routes to their current dominance".
So the neo-Darwinists tell us that the evolution of intelligence is not an inevitable outcome of evolution, and it is very improbable.

Even great physicists have remarked on how the universe appears to have no point. Richard Feynman wrote: "The great accumulation of understanding as to how the physical world behaves only convinces one that this behaviour has a kind of meaninglessness about it".
And Steven Weinberg wrote: "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless".

If the whole point of science is to try to understand the universe, and if the universe really is pointless, then why are we humans doing science? Why are we working so hard on things like astrophysics and cosmology? The problem is that we simply don’t know. In The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies states that he does not believe human intelligence to be an "accidental by-product of haphazard processes", but he is reluctant to resort to supernatural explanations. He says, "I do believe that life and mind are etched deeply into the fabric of the cosmos, perhaps through a shadowy half-glimpsed life principle." Somehow, the physical constants of the universe are set "just right" to allow intelligent beings to emerge. But how?
Science does not have all the answers, but this doesn’t mean that we should take refuge in mystic solutions. Scientists indeed try to find out more about the universe. Perhaps we will end up finding simple physical laws that explain the universe; or perhaps, just as there is the law of conservation of energy, there is also a law of "conservation of mystery" – i.e. the deeper we delve, the more mysteries we discover. However, we’ll never know unless we keep on investigating – trying to learn more – and we mustn’t pre-empt the conclusion by categorically saying, "the universe is pointless and intelligent life is just an accident", or take the deist solution and say "God set the physical constants of nature when she created the universe, and this made possible the eventual emergence of intelligent life".
For the moment, it appears to me that our lot is cast in a mysterious universe that has no purpose, but it may not be that way – that’s why we do science. And besides, isn’t it exciting to learn how nature works? ‎ CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST!

Hitler's Ethics

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

I'm currently undertaking part-time studies toward an masters of science degree in astronomy at Swinburne University in Melbourne, so it is difficult for me to avoid knowing that 2009 is the International Year of Astronomy - initiated by the International Astronomical Union and UNESCO. It commemorates the 400th anniversary of the invention of Galileo's telescope. Although Galileo removed our planet from the centre of the universe, one other great scientist - Charles Darwin - changed our view of what it means to be human. He showed that we are basically animals, and knocked man off his pedestal. This year also happens to coincide with the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth - he was born on the 12th February 1809. To commemorate the occasion, there have been a lot of celebrations, including some very interesting public lectures and exhibits here in Melbourne. What did Darwin do that was so great? As we look around our planet, we notice that lifeforms - be they humans, ducks, giraffes, etc. - are ideally suited to their habitats. We also notice that bodily organs, such as eyes, ears, brains, are ideally suited to the function they perform. We thus get the impression of deliberate design - as though a supernatural creator designed life on Earth. Darwin answered the question of how such complex "design" could arise. The answer was cumulative evolution by natural selection - i.e. by non-random survival of random hereditary modifications/mutations. In a species whose members are not identical, those members that have characteristics that make them best adapted to their environments (fittest) are most likely to procreate and pass on their inherited characteristics. This theory of evolution by natural selection made redundant the concept of a creator God. However, the creationists have attempted to restore God to his pedestal by introducing the concept of "Intelligent Design".
Moreover, the creationists have tried to pass off Intelligent Design as a legitimate science that should be taught in schools alongside Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
Intelligent design is an alternative to the Genesis story of creation. All creation myths depend on the actions of some kind of all-powerful supernatural being, and Genesis (and Intelligent Design) is one of many creations myths. Intelligent design is a kind of guided evolution. According to the supporters of intelligent design, evolution does occur - obviously the evidence for evolution is impossible even for fundamentalist Christians to ignore - but this evolution is guided by the hand of an intelligent super-being, i.e. a God.

Evolution by cumulative natural selection effectively explains how organized complex lifeforms can arise out of primeval simplicity. It is the only scientific theory that is capable of explaining the emergence of complex life, and there is much scientific evidence to back it up. Intelligent design invokes an already existing intelligent deity - i.e. it postulates a complex being without offering any explanation for its origin. Intelligent design has no hope of ever being proven or disproven by scientific testing, so it is not science.

Unfortunately, Intelligent Design is not the only example of how science - and, in particular, Darwin's theory - have been misused to satisfy particular agendas. The distortion of Darwin's argument resulted in perhaps the darkest period in the history of the 20th century.
Adolf Hitler embraced Darwinism, and used it to formulate his own form of ethics. In Hitler's mind, the Darwinian struggle for existence, particularly the struggle between different races, became the sole basis for morality. In a 1923 speech, Hitler said the following:

"... Right alone is of no use to whomever does not have the power to impose his right. The strong have always triumphed. All of nature is a constant struggle between power and weakness, a constant triumph of the strong over the weak ...". You might imagine him frothing at the mouth as he said this.

Hitler believed that the evolutionary progress and the struggle for existence was essential to promote progress. Here's what he had to say in Mein Kampf with regard to the notion of limiting population growth:

"... If reproduction is limited and the number of births decreased, then the natural struggle for existence, which only allows the strongest and healthiest to survive, will be replaced by the obvious desire to save at any cost even the weakest and sickest. Thereby a progeny is produced, which must become ever more miserable ... Eventually a stronger race will usurp the weaker ..."

So it is morally acceptable for the weak to be destroyed by the strong. This may give the impression of a barbaric, amoral dog-eat-dog view of the world, but Hitler also believed that ethics are purely a human construction - thus contradicting the Christian philosophy that ethics are God-given. He believed that morality and ethics are a product of evolution, and exist in only the "most highly evolved beings", humans. To Hitler, Germans (or Aryans) were the epitome of human morality - being more cultural and altruistic than any other race. In contrast, Jews were greedy, deceitful and immoral. He believed that strength and weakness not only applied to physical and mental attributes, but also to moral attributes. To Hitler, Jews were a morally inferior race of humans.

Using Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Hitler was able to morally justify any action - including genocide and infanticide - if it contributed to the evolutionary improvement of the human race. Evolution and the biological improvement of the human species was the ultimate goal. The concept of human rights only encouraged weakness.

Obviously, Hitler's use of Darwinism was twisted and misguided. Hitler's concept of evolutionary improvement was influenced by his racial prejudices, and his personal opinion of what constitutes improvement. Just as the proponents of Intelligent Design tried to smuggle a creator God into evolutionary biology, Hitler tried to smuggle his own moral opinions and values.

Some people may blame science for Hitler's view of the world. They may blame science for the invention of weapons of mass destruction - after all, without Einstein's theory of relativity, the atomic bomb would never have been invented. But such people are misguided. Science makes no judgment about what is or isn't ethical; this is a matter for individuals and for society. Science, in its purest forms, seeks to learn more about the universe. However, science can (and should) provide advice and information as input to ethical discussions. Problems occur when our leaders allow their own prejudices and agendas to distort the facts. We saw this with Hitler; we saw this with George W. Bush who ignored advice he didn't like - e.g. AIDS-prevention initiatives and stem-cell research - because it went against his religious-based objections. Bush also ostracized scientists who argued that humans made a significant contribution to climate change. Hopefully the new tenant of the White House will treat science with the respect it deserves. Science should be allowed to advance, and should be used for the good of the planet; but this cannot happen if politicians and religious groups insist on distorting the facts.‎ CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST!

Bushfires - the great leveller

By now, most of the world has heard of the bushfires that are savaging the southern Australian state of Victoria. As I write this, 181 people are confirmed dead, a few thousand have been left homeless, and small towns have literally been destroyed. Not to mention the native wildlife that has been wiped out. The finger of blame is being pointed at firebugs but, although they may have worsened the situation, they did not cause it. Why do bushfires happen? Is there anything we can do to prevent them?
In the case of the Victorian bushfires, the 10-year drought and the unusually high temperatures have been big factors. One theory, as explained in the book "The Emerald Planet" by David Beerling, says that natural deforestation is occurring on Earth; forests are being destroyed by Mother Nature, and replaced by grassland. Here's how it works:

The death of trees in times of drought allows patches of grass and weeds to grow. These patches of grass provide a very flammable fuel in dry seasons; they are more flammable than the trees because of the way they process carbon dioxide. Bushfires, which arise due to the high-flammability of the grass, kill more trees, and allow more of these grasses to grow (these grasses recover very rapidly after burns). So, what we're seeing is grass usurping the dominance of forests by promoting fire. Nonflammable trees are gradually being replaced by highly-flammable grasslands, and this process is being aided by a gradual increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And just to top it off, it has been shown that smoke from burning forests acts to reduce rainfall by impeding cloud formation; the fires actually increase the severity of droughts - they cause climate change.

We often hear about natural selection and survival of the fittest when applied to the animal kingdom but, if this hypothesis is correct, natural selection is being played out in the plant kingdom with lethal and devastating consequences. It is believed that this trend of grasslands usurping forests has been happening over tens of millions of years - before man came on the scene. However, there is every possibility that man-made greenhouse gases are speeding up the process. This Darwinian war of attrition will inexorably lead to a stable state in which grasslands will completely replace forests. Reducing our greenhouse gas emissions will only delay the inevitable. And while all this happening, we humans - the self-proclaimed rulers of the planet - are left to watch helplessly and impotently as our houses and towns burn down, and as precious human lives are lost.

2009 is the International Year of Astronomy, and it also coincides with Charles Darwin's 200th birthday. Galileo and Copernicus showed that the Earth is not the centre of the universe, and Darwin showed us that humanity is just another species of animal, occupying a tiny limb on the tree of life. To me, these fires are a reminder of these sobering facts. However, although we are not the centre of universe, humanity and human nature are a product of nature - we are a part of the universe. To me, that is a source of inspiration. ‎ CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE POST!