Conspiracy theorists

Glenn Beck on the radio; Mark Steyn in Macleans magazine; Conrad Black in the National Post... One thing these men have in common is their loud disbelief that global warming is occurring, much less caused by humans. Do they actually believe what they are saying/writing?

Evidently so. Just as the people who think that the US flew planes into the Twin Towers, that man has not set foot on the moon, that the Holocaust didn't happen, and so on. I sometimes wonder how intelligent people can let themselves be led to ridiculous, unsupported positions.

Of course, these guys are saying the same thing about me; namely, that I've been sucked in by all the baloney and believe that the Earth is getting warmer. Every day I hear new evidence--a study here, an observation there. What do Beck, Steyn, Black, and the other deniers think to themselves when they hear each bit of new evidence? Another deluded scientist has made a mistake (or is lying)?

For the record: I have had a cottage a few hours north of Toronto since 1976, and grew up at my parents' cottage before that. The lake temperature used to peak at 80 degrees F on or around August 1, and stay there for a day or two before starting to cool. In each of the last two years, my lake got to 80 F by July 13, and stayed that warm for over two weeks. And there are new birds in the forest. (I know by the new bird calls.)

Something has changed.

Belief in God

I just finished sending a comment to “Tim” (http://existence-of-god.com/author-information.html). Sorry, I don’t know any more about his name. Tim’s site provides a huge discussion of arguments for and against the existence of God. Each argument against God’s existence is refuted. The counter arguments, however, are very well presented, though, which is rare on “Evidence for God’s existence” sites.

If you look down the left, you see links to other sites or pages arguing for God’s existence. You see links to proclamations that “So and so rejects atheism.” I don’t see any saying “So and so converts to atheism.” I would feel better had I seen these. I realize, though, that “Tim” has no wish to convince anyone of the unreasonableness of his belief in God. And therein, really, lies the problem. The ideal philosopher, the ideal searcher after truth, should not care whether the statement “A is B” is actually true. The ideal searcher after truth should not have an agenda to convince readers that his point of view is the (only) correct one.

I am always suspicious of people’s objectivity when they have a strong belief in the truth of some statement, whether the statement is “We never went to the moon”, “HIV (virus) does not cause AIDS” or “God exists.” As I said before, though, I commend Tim for the depth of his coverage of both sides of the discussion.

I have a confession to make: I’m an atheist. As a high school physics teacher, I never stated this fact to my class. I taught that there is a separation of science from religion/philosophy/belief. I suggested that if there was any way to absolute truth, only religion could get there. I taught that science didn’t say anything about God; only that science’s goal was to come up with a useful, testable, non-divine explanation for observed phenomena. I never answered the question “Do you believe in God?”

Now, having retired, I can concede that the concept of the existence of God just does not fly with me.

One of the arguments for God’s existence is based on probability: the likelihood of the universe being precisely right for the development of intelligent life on Earth is so small that one concludes that there had to be a designer.

But I use probabilities a different way. Most people follow the faith of their parents. What is the likelihood, of all the faiths on this planet, that the one my parents happened to believe is the only true faith? I don’t think I’m that lucky. The fact that most people believe the faith of their fathers leads me to the conclusion that the correctness of their faith is suspect.

Related to that argument is the statement of humility: So many people believe in other religions, other Gods, other ways that the universe may have come to be, who am I to assume that my way is correct?

Frankly, I find the certitude of believers disturbing. I can’t buy the existence of an entity watching me/us/humanity/the cosmos, caring what we do, (perhaps) interceding (on our behalf), desiring to be worshiped, judging us.

A friend told me, “You are a good person. You have to believe in God because God is the source of all goodness.” Sorry, but I think you can be good without the need for a God (to set a standard, presumably, for ultimate goodness).

And people say, “Yes, but in the Bible it says…” Again, I don’t mean any disrespect when I say that, not believing in the existence of God, I don’t accept the Bible to be the word of (any) God.
I respect people’s belief in God. Fanatics apart, most people I meet are sincerely interested in doing good, sincerely interested in the welfare of others (not just their own kind or own religious group). If belief in a God helps them to be that way, good for them. When their loved ones die and they find solace in a belief that “God had other plans for them” or that they have “gone to a better place”, I’m happy for them. Perhaps I’m even a little envious of believers’ satisfaction, or the peace that a belief in a God has brought them.

I concede that I might be better off if I believed in God. But that is not a valid reason for a belief. I don’t think you can say, “I believe it because it’s advantageous to do so.”

So, do I believe in God? No, but if you do, that’s OK. As long as you don’t discriminate against others who believe differently from you.

Standard Accepted Knowledge

In my last article I commented on the differences in positions held by scientists and non-scientists on whether Earth had been visited in the past by intelligent extraterrestrials. I use the term scientists widely, not referring to an occupation but to a state of mind.

No matter what your occupation, I call you a scientist if you look for answers by studying the evidence; if you test to see if proposed explanations work; and if you assume that there are reasonable, physical explanations first, before resorting to magic or far-out justifications for an extraordinary claim.

I made a statement that there is near universal agreement among scientists on the big issues. Here is a list of what I consider those issues to be.

Earth is a speck in the cosmos. There are likely to be many small, rocky planets orbiting stars, some of which will be similar to our sun. There are so many stars, there are bound to me many Earth-like planets at suitable distances from their sun that conditions were similar to those on early Earth.

Earth is old and changing. Continents drift around and collide. Mountains rise. Rivers cut canyons. Lakes and oceans fill up with debris that eventually becomes sedimentary rock. As you dig down through layers you reach older and older rock.

Life processes follow the laws of chemistry and physics. There is no process that requires “magic”. We don’t know all the processes, but are confident that they are “knowable”. (Consider the opposite. If, for example, some magical process causes the heart to beat, then we might as well stop trying to understand how the heart works!)

Life evolves. Little changes in short periods add up to bigger changes over long periods.

The laws of mathematics and physics apply everywhere. The formula for a circle and value of pi is the same on Mars. Magicians don’t do true magic: they are still constrained by the laws of physics. (While watching a magic show, everytime you ask yourself, “How did he do that?” you are applying this concept. You feel that there was a physical explanation, a “trick”. You didn’t see true magic.)

Matter is particulate. Substances are made of atoms that join to become molecules. (Atoms themselves are made of particles.)

The properties an object possesses depend on the observer. (This claim, for which there is much evidence, arises from relativity and quantum physics. Relativity deals with the big concepts of time, space, gravity, matter and energy; quantum physics with the behaviour of matter and energy at the tiniest level.

I might as well mention the fringe items, too.

There are no ghosts, werewolves, vampires, living dead, mammoth spiders, King Kongs, Spidermen, invisible people, extraterrestrial aliens living amongst us.

Astrology is false.

There is no such thing as psychic ability. You can’t move objects by though alone. No one can actually read minds, see the future (rather than predict likelihoods), perceive present, past, or future events by other than the five senses.

Men HAVE landed on the moon (i.e. the landing in 1969 was not a hoax.)
Humans and dinosaurs did not inhabit the Earth at the same time.

I expect many to disagree with me on many of this last list. In particular, countless people will cite amazing occurrences, coincidences, anecdotes, and “facts”. I will leave it as this: I have seen no repeatable, non-controversial evidence that convinces me that, for example, ESP exists. A million dollar prize is available for ANY purported psychic who can demonstrate ANY psychic ability. No one has yet been able to do it.

As much as we, scientists included, might wish for exceptional abilities, extraordinary creatures, and assistance from the stars, there is just no good evidence for any of it.

ESP

I had a discussion recently with members of my writer’s club. A small group of us meet regularly to exchange critiques of our developing novels. Two involved forms of ESP. In one, a character had the ability to picture previous inhabitants of a house and, specifically, “feel” terrifying experiences that happened to others. Another novel featured a scene in which a character was awakened in the night at a crucial time via a “signal” from her distant mother.

I’m a physics teacher and sceptical of the these phenomena. No, I’ll be honest, I’m not just sceptical, I don’t believe ESP exists. I’m careful not to let this disbelief affect my critiques of the novels. After all, my novel-in-progress uses parallel universes, a concept no less dubius.

I made the mistake, at the end of the evening, of mentioning my scepticism. Jim, one of the authors, was incredulous. “You don’t believe in ESP?” he remarked.
Me: No. There’s no good evidence that ESP exists.
Jim: You don’t think people can read minds?”
Me: Of course not. Nobody has been able to demonstrate that ability when examined carefully.
Jim: How about Edgar Cayce?
Me: Are you kidding? Magicians can do that stuff.
By this time Jim was laughing. At first I thought he was just having fun. But he was laughing with disbelief that I could be so mistaken.
Jim: How about astral projection?
Me: For heaven’s sake. There’s no evidence for that.
Jim: [laughing harder] Uri Geller bending spoons?
Me: URI GELLER!!! He couldn’t do it on Johnny Carson. Magicians can bend spoons. They aren’t using any special powers.
Jim: Astrology?
Me: Jim, astrology and horoscopes are demonstrably false.
Jim: [laughing uproariously at my ignorance] Alien abductions?
Me: No way. There’s no evidence for that.
Jim: Have you read about Betty and Barney Hill.
Me: I’ve read about them, and am satisfied that alien abduction is not the explanation for Barney’s drawing.
Jim: Well, they’re my aunt and uncle. They believe it.

At this point, the teacher of our little group spoke up passionately.

Lynda: What about when a little girl at home sees her Dad in the doorway waving goodbye when he was actually in the hospital, and her Mom next to her in bed awakens and says “You just saw your Dad, didn’t you?” and the Mom telephones the hospital to find out that he just died?

I wanted to respond with some more old saws (like “when my grandmother died, her picture fell off the wall”) but bit my tongue, for Lynda was talking from personal experience.

Me: I accept that you experienced what you say, but my explanation might be different from yours.

Suffice it to say that I took quite a roasting for expressing strong doubts about ESP and its kin. There is not much you can say when honest, intelligent people give testimonials. When I related this story to my friend Bruce, he pointed out that my disbelief in ESP’s existence is a belief in its non-existence. So I’m expressing a belief just as ESP’s proponents are.

Me: But there’s evidence that supports my position.
Bruce: But believers consider anecdotal evidence to be of equal value to scientific testing.
Me: But it’s not.
Bruce: That’s your BELIEF. You believe that the scientific method is the only way to truth. They believe that there are other ways to truth for some phenomenon that science just can’t catch reliably.

Bruce was not necessarily defending ESP’s existence, only arguing for the equality of belief for and against, given different background beliefs in the validity of the scientific method for determining truth. Interesting.

More on that in the next article.

Intelligent Design in the Science Classroom

There are several court cases and school board elections in the United States revolving around the issue of the teaching, or even the mere mention, of Intelligent Design in science classrooms. ID is, basically, the idea that the complexity of the world around us shows the influence of an architect; in essence, a divine creator. An example that usually arises is the claim that the human eye could not have evolved because there are too many steps between non-eye and eye. Evolution, supposedly, is sequential, and the fact that a partial eye confers no reproductive advantage, the theory of evolution fails to explain the development of the eye. Only an intelligent designer able to conceive of and construct the entire eye could have brought about the presence of eyes in humans (and other animals.) He did this instantly…no half-measures.

Proponents claim that ID is every much a science as is evolution. At least, ID is no more a religion than is evolution. Therefore, ID should be taught in science class. At a minimum, a statement should be read to science students that the theory of evolution is found wanting in some areas, and Intelligent Design provides the answers.

As a retired science teacher, I find myself in an ironic position. I agree whole-heartedly that ID, or even the statement requested by ID fans, has no place in a science classroom. Yet I discussed ID in my classroom, of my own volition. The difference was, I discussed why ID was out of the realm of science, without actually declaring its truth or falsity.

A recurring theme in my senior physics course was the distinction between religion/belief/philosophy and science. With examples drawn from ancient Greece, from the European eras Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, and from twentieth century America, I tried to show how the disciplines differed.

Science deals with observable, repeatable phenomena and provides testable, falsifiable explanations. By definition, an explanation for a specific phenomenon or observation that includes God would not be a valid scientific explanation.

The reason is simple: since God can do anything he wants (or she wants, but we’ll stick with “he” for simplicity) he could make the phenomenon happen or not happen on a whim. Repeatability goes out the window. Similarly, you can’t test for God. To be contrary, suppose that a test does exist for the presence of God. For argument’s sake, we can suppose the test to be the mixing of two liquids, with favourable results being a yellow product. That is, suppose that if we mix the two liquids and get a yellow product, that means God exists. We demonstrate, repeatedly, the positive result: yellow after yellow after yellow. Each time we mix the liquids, the product turns yellow. We say, “See, God exists.” Suddenly, one day, the result is red. What do we say then when we see a result that is contrary to known behaviour of the two liquids? It would be like seeing a falling ball suddenly hovering motionless in the air. We’d call that a miracle (if we had no other physical explanation, such as hidden strings or magnets). But consider: a miracle is evidence of God’s existence. So if the liquids turned yellow or didn’t turn yellow, both results supposedly implied that God exists. Thus the experiment was irrelevant. There can be no test for God.

I tell my students, “I’m not saying that God doesn’t exist, only that there is no scientific test that can confirm it.” The statement “God exists” is philosophical, religious, a statement of belief.

In science, no acceptable explanations for an event can mention God. How did the Grand Canyon form? Explanation: God made it. How was Earth created? God made it. How does haemoglobin carry oxygen? God puts it there. These explanations may be true (who knows?) but are simply not scientific.

A God explanation is an intellectual dead-end for a scientist. And for you, too. Have you watched magic shows? The magician makes a rabbit appear from an empty black hat. Don’t you think to yourself, “How did he do it?” The very act of searching for an explanation shows that you believe that the magician was subject to the same laws of physics as you are, and used no true magic. How disappointing magic shows would be if the true explanation for each trick was “magic”! You might as well not try to figure anything out, if the explanation is “magic”.

Science, the search for physical explanations, deals only with non-God hypotheses. That’s why Intelligent Design is an unacceptable scientific explanation for a phenomenon.

Intelligent Design grew out of (evolved!) from Creation Science. Most creationists were fundamentalists, believers in the literal interpretation of the Bible. They taught that God made the world as described in Genesis, fundamentally as we see it today. He made the mountains, the valleys, the plants, the animals, and the humans. There was no evolution; the Earth was young. Creation Science’s close adherence to the Bible made the religious connection obvious. The US Supreme Court ruled that Creation “Science” could not be taught as a science.

The Intelligent Design proponents try to escape the “religion” label. They say that they are not discussing religion in the classroom (which would be contrary to the US Constitution.) Rather, they are proposing a valid “scientific” explanation for a phenomenon that happens to involve an architect. The distinction between the architect and God is rather tenuous. (And arguing that there is such a distinction is somewhat disingenuous.)

ID looked good at first blush, but fails on a number of planes. As already mentioned, ID requires a deity. But let’s ignore that fatal wound for a minute. ID fails for other reasons. The sequential evolution of the eye can be shown to provide benefits during the intermediate steps. As explained in Dawson’s book The Blind Clockmaker, there are animals on Earth right now possessing “eyes” (or light detecting regions/organs) in a multitude of different shapes and complexities that can be strung together to demonstrate the development of the human eye (or follow alternate paths for the evolution of other eyes, such as that of the octopus or house fly.) The presence of each “partial-eye” is advantageous over the previous step. Second, our eyes, although very good, could have been designed better. The light-sensing cells of the retina are backward, with nerve connections to the brain extending toward the front (i.e. inside the eye) rather than the back. The result is less than optimum light reception, and a blind spot where the bundled nerves pass through the retina on the way to the brain. The “Intelligent” designer was not fully intelligent in the case of the human eye. (Evolution, however, just goes where it goes. The drift is toward improvement, but optimal results are not guaranteed.)

There are many examples where an intelligent designer could have done a better job. Here’s another. Unlike women’s ovaries, men’s testicles hang outside the body, exposing them to potential harm. The reason is that sperm must be formed and stored at below body temperature. Why not just make sperm that “liked” body temperature? Remember, the designer had God-like powers, and God can do anything. He certainly could have made sperm that thrived at 37°C.

At this point, many IDers will say that God must have had some other reason for making eyes or testicles in what appears to be a less efficient manor. This is the old “God moves in mysterious ways” argument. The problem with this damage control spin is a little abstract. “God moves in mysterious ways” makes the original claim of God’s intervention non-falsifiable. Here’s why: when we see an example of something that works as we expect a God would have make it, we say “Look. There’s good evidence for our (God) argument.” When we see something that runs counter to the God-did-it argument, we say “Well, it probably supports the argument too, but we just can’t see the connection.” Thus the God-did-it argument holds regardless of whether we perceive it or not. Evidence is irrelevant.

At a little deeper level, the “mysterious ways” argument is intellectually dishonest. When we announce a connection between the world and what we feel God would have done, we are claiming that humans have the ability to grasp the divine purpose. But when we retreat to “God moves in mysterious ways” we are saying that humans don’t have the ability to grasp the divine purpose. You can’t have it both ways.

I taught all the above, little by little when applicable, to my senior science students. When someone asked “Do you believe in God?” I refused to answer yes or no. My response was that I did not want to influence young person toward either answer. When a student asked “Do you believe in evolution?” my response was, “By using the word “believe” you are asking for my religious position." If the student rephrased the question as "Do you think evolution is a good scientific explanation for the living world as we see it?” my response was, "Yes. Evidence for evolution is wide-spread and overwhelming."

If you ask, “Should science teachers be forced to mention Intelligent Design in their classrooms” my response is “No.” And, if you ask, “Did I mention ID in my classes?” my answer is “Yes”.

God and Why Things Happen

I had an interesting discussion on a car trip last night with my wife Sue and niece, Jenn. We had started with the question of life off the Earth, and touched on parallel universes and extra dimensions, God and science. At one point I mentioned the tube worms and other creatures living around the deep sea vents.
Sue: What is the purpose of them being there?
Rob: Do you mean what role do they play in their little ecosystem?
Sue: No, what is the reason they are there?
Rob: Evolution doesn’t happen for a reason, that is, in order to fulfill something. Like giraffes didn’t evolve long necks in order to eat the leaves of tall trees. Its just that longer necked creatures were able to get more food, so stayed healthy, and had more babies. So over the long run, a long-necked creature evolved.
Jenn: So you don’t believe there was a purpose to their evolution.
Rob: “Believe?” Good word, Jenn. You are asking a philosophical question: what is my philosophy or religious position on the matter. Not a question of science.
Jenn: No, no. Science. If giraffes didn’t evolve long necks there would be more leaves left on the trees. They would shade the ground, changing the temperature. They would fall and rot and change the pH. There’s be a different ecosystem.
Rob: Right. Good point. That’s why we have to be careful because when we engineer a change in the ecosystem, a million other things are affected.
Jenn: Right, like adding rabbits to Australia, or using pesticides. So can’t the purpose of the giraffes be that they are needed for that ecosystem?
Rob: But let’s for a moment assume that there are no giraffes. You would say to me “The reason there are no long-necked creatures is that they would eat the high leaves, there would be more sunshine, so the ground would be warmer at the base of the tree. There would be fewer leaves to rot, and the pH would change.
Jenn: (laughs) Same argument.
Rob: Right. Your original argument was, basically, if there are no giraffes, things would be different. When that argument can be used both for and against the point being examined, that argument is valueless as a scientific statement.
Jenn: I see that.
Rob: You could make it into a valid philosophical argument, though. A religious person could say, for example, that if there were no giraffes, conditions would be different and the difference would be bad. Since God would not have wanted the conditions to be bad, God wouldn’t have allowed that (i.e. no giraffes) to happen, and would have created/evolved giraffes in the first place.
The problem with this argument, though, is that, for consistency, it must be applied everywhere. You could say that the malaria mosquito or the TB virus must have been created/evolved for a purpose. So why are we (even “good” religious people) contributing money to eradicate these creatures? Might not we be acting against God’s will?
There are a couple of ways out of this conundrum. One is to say that we are part of God’s creation/evolution, so our purpose was to alter the ecosystem (for the good) by wiping out the bad bugs. Unfortunately, this argument also has too wide a range, because it could be used by the people eradicating the rainforests and polluting the environment, too.
Another escape is the “free will” argument: God gave us free will to do our best to determine what’s good and what’s bad. We see that wiping out giraffes is bad, but wiping out TB is good. (That leaves the question about why God allowed the TB in the first place, if not to test us when we develop the capability of eradicating it. (This heads towards “Why do bad things happen to good people?”, perhaps the deepest, most important religious question.)
Sue: Rob! Pay attention. You’re heading to Niagara falls!
Rob: [cutting across two lanes highway traffic, and driving on the shoulder until we can get into the correct lane] Sorry.