Harvard enters debate on evolution (including beginning of life)

[papau]

the "Origins of Life in the Universe" study

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050815/ts_nm/evolution_dc;_ylt=AkBVP9mwZH1aBhuQLCN.ZrdZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Harvard enters debate on evolution By Daisuke Wakabayashi
Mon Aug 15, 7:38 PM ET

Harvard University is planning a scientific study of how life emerged on Earth, thrusting one of America's most prestigious universities into the growing, politically charged debate over an alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.<snip>

Harvard declined to comment on how much it planned to pay for the project, but the Boston Globe newspaper reported it would spend $1 million annually over the next few years.

David Liu, a chemistry professor at Harvard, said in the newspaper that while living systems are complex, science should provide the answers.

"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention," Liu was quoted as saying.




Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content

[Botany]

1. I want a study on how * got into and recieved a grad degree from

Harvard. If that did not take an outside powerful force to design it
then I don't know what does.

[kahleefornia]

2. Origin is different than evolution

There is a slant to this article that is misleading.

[wtbymark]

3. evolution is an ongoing process

that has been proven scientifically, 'origin' is what the ID folks are blathering about so this scientist has it right when he said he's exploring the origin of life on earth. And he's also right in the fact that simple logic will provide the answers. Philosophy always tends to precede science. A philosophical premise is usually the start of most scientific processes.

[kahleefornia]

4. OK, it's a little better now that I read the whole thing

I just don't like when people say "God created everything! Therefore evolution doesn't exist!"

It is getting right down to it to study where, when, and how the first living thing happened. But even if they find the first amino acid slime or whatever that had "life", the fundies will just come right back and say, "yeah, well, god did that..."

I'd rather scientists not enter debates with religion - to me, it looks like they're giving creationism and ID some weight.

[beam me up scottie]

7. They're not giving the anti-evolutionists anything.

It's spin from a pathetic excuse for a reporter.

If you want the truth, check out the Boston Globe article.

Legitimate journalists do NOT solicit the Discovery Institute for their opinion on scientific research.

Your first impression was right on.

[papau]

5. it will be interesting to watch- I doubt any simple logic explanation will

be forthcoming,

BUT I COULD BE WRONG!

:toast:

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

6. Slant ?

Hell, it's vertical.
What a stupid article.
No offense, Papau.

The study is on the origin of life, it has absolutely nothing to do with ID or religious beliefs.
The author is a moron.
He infers that Harvard is not being truthful about the project with this line:

Harvard tried to downplay the timing of the project, saying it was not in response to the debate over intelligent design theory.

And then he interviews someone from the Discovery Institute, as if they are qualified to comment on scientific research:

"This is ... a stunning admission that the current theories do not explain it, and it has not refuted the idea that things are the product of intelligent cause," said John West, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a think tank that backs intelligent design theory.

And if you still have any doubts about the reporter's bias, this is his description of the Discovery Institute:

The Discovery Institute advocates that schools teach scientific criticisms of Darwin's theories.

See this article about the scientific research Harvard is doing without the pinhead reporter putting the god spin on it:
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_of_life_launched/

[papau]

8. Thanks for the better link to the Globe version -

and no offense taken!

I just post that which I think some folks might find interesting to read.

If I had my head on straight I would have searched Boston.com for the Globe article so as get a bit more truth -

but then the post would have lost all the ID spin :-)

I got envolved in this when doing a review of "origin" work for a tutor in the late forties - I do not think it has progress all that much from the Russian electricity plus heat plus chemical sludge gives organic chemicals - but I could be wrong.

Perhaps we can get that cell membrane to pop into existence - and then get the "life" activity to occur inside the membrane. One of my daughters friends has been working on this for 10 years - it will be interesting if the Harvard study puts a few more dollars behind the research,

[beam me up scottie]

11. The Discovery Institute is out of control.

Emboldened, no doubt, by the village idiot in the White house.

They think they can simply bypass all of the research and hard work that has been done by scientists and have their "theory" declared credible because they say it is.:mad:

The author is no better, he has no business reporting on science when he obviously has so little regard for it.

Maybe he should switch careers and start teaching in Kansas.

[PsychoDad]

9. Interesting Quote.

"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention," Liu was quoted as saying."

Just some early morning thoughts, forgive me if I ramble a bit...

In essence, Professor Lui would expect "divine intervention" to be an illogical event, somehow defined and separate from all the other "natural" events leading to this point. In other words, only if there is no "natural" explanation for life, then perhaps "God" had something to do with it.

Professor Lui misses the idea that all the natural events that led to life (ie: the chemical and molecular laws that governed the formation of complex self replicating molecules that led to life as we understand it) were perhaps themselves nothing less than the result of a divine will which dictated the entire symmetry of our universe from before the beginning.

In other words, maybe the universe was "programed" to bring life into existence, and thus no outside tinkering was needed after the universe was started.

Thus we would expect the natural laws governing such things as planetary formation and biological evolution to be a natural event. Perhaps the whole of the universe is teeming with life, because that's what it was intended to do.

There are some really brilliant folks on this board, and I'd love to hear some of your views.

Sorry if I rambled... Been a long night. :)

[beam me up scottie]

10. The reporter is disingenuous.

Dr. Liu is a scientist, he should not be concerned with missing ideas from biblical stories.

What would you expect a scientist to say when asked about creationism?

His quote was also taken out of context and used to embellish this puff piece.

Here is Dr. Liu's actual quote, in context, from the Globe article:

Now, encouraged by a confluence of scientific advances -- such as the discovery of water on Mars and an increased understanding of the chemistry of early Earth -- the Harvard scientists hope to help change that.

"We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

[papau]

12. I agree - it seems those that fight ID do not realize they are fighting

a nothing - and indeed are not challenging religion or anyone's faith.

[beam me up scottie]

13. We're fighting to keep creationism out of the classroom.

That's not "nothing".

That's called advocating teaching science in school instead of superstition.

And it has everything to do with education and nothing to do with religion or faith.

We'd appreciate it if you would keep religious instruction in church and out of our schools.

And the ridiculous word games IDers play aren't fooling anyone.;-)

ID is a creationist oinker with lipstick.

[papau]

14. Good Grief - fight ID is fight bad science - but fighting the idea that

evolution or the big bang should be questioned IS BAD SCIENCE/LOGIC.

I join with you in your fight to keep ID out of the classromm - and I fight with you when you try to say any science idea has become religious dogma that can not be questioned.

[beam me up scottie]

15. "any science idea" ?

ID doesn't question science (what you call "religious dogma"), it insults our intelligence and will dumb down the population.

Science only seems dogmatic to those who don't understand that blind faith is illogical and unscientific.

[papau]

16. I rephrase - ID meaning proving creationism should be kept out of

the classroom.

The ID folk's point that one should question any and all science rules/"facts"/ideas should be part of the classroom.

The fact that ID folks speak truth as to the need to question does not mean we should suddenly STOP questioning because ID'ers support questioning.

[kahleefornia]

17. science has always been about questioning

We don't need religion introduced to facilitate that.

[papau]

19. True - but neither do we stop questioning and treat as Dogma just

because some religious folks point out the questions that we in science have raised about some idea.

[papau]

21. delete

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

18. Stop that.

I KNOW what ID proponents advocate, and it's NOT questioning science.

It's ignoring science completely by saying that a creator designed anything "too complex" for them to understand, and therefore begs the question that it obviously could not have evolved.

It's creationism, piss-poorly disguised as science.

I cannot believe I'm even having this discussion.

Do you work for the Discovery Institute?

[papau]

20. No - but the ID versus Science C-Span pannels have all been about

questioning the current science ideas -

indeed there has been no "god" in the C-span "debate" as I recall - although I grant you GOD and proving GOD is the motivator of many of the ID folk.

All I am saying is we need to separate the questioning suggestion - which is a good - from the idea that complexity requires a GOD.

God belief is by faith alone - you do not "prove it"

Skinner is hot for attribution today, so let me note that the above arguement was made by the science folks at the C-Span debate on ID.

[beam me up scottie]

22. The Discovery Institute peddles that blather.

ID is creationism.

The "intelligence" aka creator is either god or aliens or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Allowing ID to be compared to science begs the question that there is an "intelligence" behind the "design".

And assumption of creators is religion.

You do not need a religious agenda to question science.

Scientists do it every day.

[papau]

26. true - and that is point two days of posts were trying to convey - but

my English as a second lanuage skills were obviously not working! :shug:

no matter - if I had tried to explain in the lanuage I spoke until I was 4 I would have done worse - as I have forgotton most of it! :-)

But it good we are on the same page = I think...

peace

:toast:

:-)

[kahleefornia]

23. Yes - ID stops questioning

At the point where it gets difficult or complex. Look at the leaps that have been made in understanding our natural world. ID is a modern version of saying we can't prove the earth is round, so we may as well just give up and say god made all the clues about earth-round-ness up to confuse us and test our faith.

How could the earth possibly revolve around the sun, which has 8 gabillion times the gravitational force, not crash into the sun or other planets, and also have been randomly created? Do you want to stop there, or continue to study gravity and rotational forces to see that indeed there are rational explanations?

Could you explain electricity and lightbulbs to someone in the year 1435? Does the inability to do so mean that god created electricity and lightbulbs?

[beam me up scottie]

24. Um, are you asking me to defend ID?

Because I've been doing my damndest to destroy it.

[kahleefornia]

25. no - I was responding to papau

who also is not exactly defending it, but is somehow kind of leaning that way. You're doing a fine job.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Hey, thanks.

You're no slouch either.
Welcome to DU.
:toast:

[papau]

29. You are doing a great job - papau is just saying question - in some

discussions I have had with those in physics, Hawking's assertions have been treated like the words from God - and I swear I am in a fundie discussion.

Just as Beam me up has a hot button on ID, I perhaps have a hot button on folks that claim science has all the answers or ever will have all the answers.

We live in an uncertain world - that is all I am saying.

If faith in science helps one to get through the day - as in science will solve all problems in the future - then good for you - but it seems fair to point out that we are talking about faith in this case.

:-)

[papau]

28. Does the inability to do so mean ... - ??? - I do not know what it means

and indeed a science person should IMHO keep an open mind as to what it means.

But the fact we can explain light bulbs today and could not in the 15th century does not mean we are guaranteed an explanation of anything - even if we wait until the end of time. To say otherwise is to have "faith" in science - and then we are back to religion - this time called "science" :-)

Question everything - but do not expect answers to "everything" in your lifetime or in the remaining time left to humans. Just enjoy the answers we do get!

:-)

[kahleefornia]

30. ok, I'm hearing you now

I get it.

[papau]

31. :-) peace!

:toast:

:-)

[PsychoDad]

32. ID should stay out of the Science Classroom...

Although I believe that the universe came into being and evolved due to divine will (I guess that would be ID), it is not in any way scientificly testable.

ID is a philosophy. Not a science.

And how does ID insult antone's intelligence? Is anyone who belives that there may be purpose to everything around us automaticly less intelligent than someone who doesn't?

And I'd be one of the first to agree with your statement about "Blind Faith". But remember illogical only means contrary to the way things are currently understood. (A round earth at one time would have been illogical and counter intuitive to "logical" observation) Blind faith may seem perfectly logical to the person who practices it.

Peace.

[beam me up scottie]

33. ID insults intelligence because it's a cover for creationism,

and its proponents think we're too stupid to know any better.
It is used specifically to undermine science.

[PsychoDad]

34. Ok, now I see what you are saying.

Yeah, and I think you are dead on. ID is being used to shoehorn Fundi Christian Creationism into the classroom, "under our noses" as it were, LOL.

I guess it is insulting that they think most people are gullible enough to take it without question.

Let them come up with a demonstrable theory and provide evidence. That's science, not, "it's here in this book".

[beam me up scottie]

35. I'm sorry if it sounded like I thought

that believers aren't intelligent.

I think most believers accept evolutionary theory and find it compatible with their religious beliefs as opposed to the either/or stance taken by fundies.