The Evolution of Evolution

Poor Darwin: after a sanguine year of celebration to honor the 200th anniversary of his birth, the unconditional love he's enjoyed in the scientific community is starting to fade. Every theory, including that hallowed idea of natural selection, is subject to inquiry; it's the beauty of scientific progress. Next year, Gary Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini will release What Darwin Got Wrong, a book that takes the controversial stance that the notion of natural selection--that traits are selected for their ability to ensure a creature's survival--is provably false, even though the related theory of the genealogy of species is very likely true. Their thesis rests in two parts: one, that when biologically broken down and analyzed, natural selection cannot explain evolution, and two, that the conceptual core (especially related to trait selection) of natural selection is inherently weak (and, in fact, implies 'intelligent selection,' which to us non-creationists, is inherently false). This is not a book that purports the answer, but is an attempt to present a cogent argument to dispute the Darwinian theory of phenotype evolution and to offer theories that differ from the "current adaptationist consensus."

Clearly, the argument that phenotypes evolve in ways that seemingly do not support the idea of "survival of the fittest" is apt: just look at these evolutionary oddballs, never mind the persistent presence of Sarah Palin. But still, it's eerie to question what, for most, is the bedrock of molecular biology--and anytime a door is opened to the ardent adherents (are there any other kind?) of intelligent design, we're all in trouble. Check out former child star Kirk Cameron's latest endeavor, a "150th anniversary edition of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, complete with 50-page creationist introduction" that explains why the banana--in all seriousness--is "the atheist's worst nightmare" because it's just so damn easy to eat, it must have been crafted especially to fit in human hands. Amanda Gefter does a glorious job of undercutting the creationist claims on New Scientist's CultureLab blog.

Moral of the story: the evolution of the theory of evolution takes some getting used to, but we should be thankful for it. The theory of a virgin birth hasn't changed an iota in two thousand years, and it's getting us nowhere but in the fast lane to crazytown.

The Importance of the Heretic

The Times Magazine published a long profile of the legendary "subversive" theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson last weekend. Dyson's most recent claim to fame is his stubbornness in acquiescing to his community's consensus that global warming is a man-made and dangerous problem; he says “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated," and argues that global warming has reached a cultish fame ahead of more practical issues facing mankind, like poverty and infectious disease, and that increased carbon in the atmosphere has positive as well as negative effects. Dyson is a celebrated scientist, one "fleeced" out of a Nobel, and his notoriety as a heretic is often spoken of with exasperation; he says, "the world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies." Despite what you think of his "trillion carbon-absorbing trees" idea, or his famous Dyson sphere (really, this man would have made a killing as a science fiction writer), Dyson makes an important point that is increasingly salient as the country tries to recover from an authoritarian administration where deregulation equalled a free market and creationism equalled religion. On that subject, Dyson has said,

"Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect.

Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions. ... I am neither a saint nor a theologian. To me, good works are more important than theology."

And there you have it: that rare creature, the theist-scientist: the complete dissident.

For further reading: The Scientist As Rebel (2008); A Many-Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe (2007); Disturbing the Universe (2001).