Martin Nowak, SuperCooperators and Evolutionary Studies of Religion
Martin Nowak is director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University - and, combining evolutionary biology and mathematics (especially game theory) one of the most creative and interdisciplinary scientists of our time. In his new book "SuperCooperators. Altruism, Evolution and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed" (with Roger Highfield), he presented as a key finding a set of five cooperative functions driving the evolutionary processes in biology and culture.
Five Ways of Solving Cooperative Dilemmata
To put it in a nutshell, Martin Nowak deciphered five distinct ways that evolved in nature and culture(s) in order to solve cooperative dilemmata such as the famous prisoner's dilemma.
1. Direct Reciprocity
2. Indirect Reciprocity
3. Spatial Games
4. Group Selection
5. Kin Selection
Here is a lecture by the author about the subject and the book:
Game Theory in the Evolutionary Studies of Religion? Yes!
Martin Nowak explicitly proposes to study the biocultural evolution of religiosity and religions by the same perspective: And I do agree. In fact, we have been doing just that in our trials to grasp the observable reproductive successes of the religiously affiliated. Game Theory is one of the most promising ways of future evolutionary studies of religiosity and religions.
* German Version of this recommendation.
Printview
The mathematics of Game Theory (GT) starts very simply but quite quickly becomes rather complex. Especially for the non-mathematician, it is important not to be seduced; mathematical complexity does not necessarily equate to scientific profundity or the ability to explain/ forecast observable events in the real world.
The models proposed by GT are just that; models (of the real world). Like all such models, they will only produce useful results if they include the relevant variables and accurately state relevant relationships between those variables. For complex real-world phenomena this is a big ask. Just speak to the weather-modelers.
Religiosity (of the individual, say) is a very complex real-world phenomena. How to specify it mathematically? What are the relevant variables that affect individual religiosity? What are the interactions between these variables? Is GT the best approach to model it?
I do not share your optimism re this approach Michael. However, I really do hope that I am proved wrong.
In 1953, Erwin Schrodinger faces the problem that Physics cannot explain life, and hinted also that biology cannot explain human behavior and culture. Martin Nowak is attempting to do this in his theory of SuperCooperators and he looks for the explanation of human behavior in the biological engines of molecular biology.
That is his methodological mistake and there is no experimental or scientific bases for his Theory of Cooperation. It is simply a juggling of concepts and evolutionary facts that have nothing to do with his conclusions.
I am more optimistic - not due to theoretical deliberations, but due to empirical findings. For example, you might be interested in the findings of a new experimental study combining game theory and scientific study of religion:
Implicit influences of Christian religious representations on dictator and prisoner’s dilemma game decisions, Ali M. Ahmeda, Osvaldo Salasc, The Journal of Socio-Economics 40 (2011) 242-246. Download here:
http://docs.google.com/...fgvPQs-AVqANxQ&pli=1
Best wishes!
Game theory is simply a play with words and concepts that have nothing to do with the root of human behavior, which proceed from free will and free choice. It seems to hold that human beings are determined or controlled by genetic or somatic factors, overlooking entirely human reason and free will. Martin Nowak seems to be convinced that human behavior is determined solely by evolutionary and biological factors. Human beings are more than their biology and their genetic inheritance. For heavens sake, whatever happened to Aristotle?
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nbraska
"Game theory is simply a play with words and concepts that have nothing to do with the root of human behavior, which proceed from free will and free choice."
It would be a pity to see these rather misleading, categorical declarations go unchallenged.
Game theory is a mathematical modelling technique that explores decision-making where the utility of outcomes are dependent upon decisions made by others. Although I am doubtful about its application to the study of religiosity, it has been an extremely useful exploratory tool in several fields that involve contingent decision-making including economics, politics and psychology.
Expert opinion will vary on the role of 'free will' in the etiology of human behaviour. However, psychologists are fairly unanimous about the overwhelming influence on behaviour of (1) the genome (2) the experienced nurturing/ social environment (3) developed subjective cognitive constructs and the interaction between these factors.
I would suggest that the religiosity of the individual is largely conditioned by these factors with free-will playing a relatively minor role; sometimes in the form of 'doubt'.
I am not talking about religiosity. I am talking about the roots of human behavior and the human faculties that enter into that behavior. Reason, intellect and will are the primary sources of human behavior, and there is no doubt that that same human being has senses and feelings, emotions and passions. But these are part of the content of human behavior. "To speak of animal is one thing, to speak of the human animal is quite another." Evolutionary Dynamics seems to say that human beings are completely explained by their biology. Human beings are more than their biology and mathematical games theory is not definitive, it is merely descriptive.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
Thank you for that reply.
I suggest that we will have to agree to disagree about the ultimate sources of human behaviour as distinct from proximate and concomitant aspects of that behaviour Clifford.
I don't believe that any evolutionary theorist worth his salt would claim that " --- human beings are completely explained by their biology". That would be completely wrong-headed. Can you refer me to an example of such a silly claim?
However, in my humble opinion, it would be equally wrong-headed to over- emphasize the role of 'free will' backed up by reason and intellect without mentioning biology/ genetics and the other factors I outlined in my last post.
The more we psychologists/ philosophers study human behaviour the more evidence we find that genes, social experiential factors and subjective cognitive constructs are the ultimate determinants of human behaviour. Many philosophers will even argue that our 'free-will' is completely delusional! This, of course, goes too far.
"the more evidence we find that genes, social experiential factors and subjective cognitive constructs are the ultimate determinants of human behaviour" -
there is no a shred of scientific evidence that that is true, except perhaps what you call "cognitive constructs". Do you mean to say that your own statement is determined by genes, etc.? and is not the free act of your own will and intelligence? If that is true it is absolutely meaningless as far as its truth is concerned. Biology and genetics are simply human biology and genetics, they are not determinant of human behavior "as human". As for proof for the claim that human beings are completely explained by their biology, you can find it in most of the writings of Richard Dawkins. I am not questioning his superb knowledge of evolutionary biology, but his unproved assertions that human beings are completely explained by biological factors. I don't quite know what you mean by "social experiential factors" so I cannot comment on that. If as you say "our free will is completely delusional", then so are your statements to that effect. Where does judgment and reason enter into the picture. I will admit that "habit" has a lot to do with human behavior, as well as environment and education. I guess we do have to disagree about the ultimate sources of human behavior but I will agree that there are "proximate and concomitant aspects of that behavior, but none of these are determinant. The weakness of your position, in some respects, seems to be from a partial or total lack of familiarity with demonstrative science and that seems to be part of the problem with both Martin Nowak and Richard Dawkins. Respectfully,
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, NEbraska
Cooperation among human beings is no an evolutionary or biological phenomenon. It is the result of reason, judgment and personal choice. Ethics cannot be explained by molecular biology, any more than molecular biology can be explained by Physics. Erwin Schrodinger began to ask questions about the relationship of Physics to Biology in his lectures delivered at Trinity College in 1943. He recognized that Physics cannot explain life, and it is time to recognize that Biology cannot explain Anthropology. That is what Martin Nowak and his colleague are attempting to do in this book.
There is a factor in human beings that evolution cannot explain. It is not explained by genes, by DNA, or any other biological engine. It was Niels Bohr, Max Delbruck and Erwin Schrodinger who recognized that Physics, including the genius of Maxwell, Planck, Einstein and Bohr himself could not explain the facts of molecular biology. It will take another genius to recognize that Biology cannot explain human behavior, insofar as it is uniquely human. The relationship between mind and matter was opened by e Erwin Schrodinger and no one has been able to bridge that chasm with evolutionary or biological tools.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
You write "The weakness of your position, in some respects, seems to be from a partial or total lack of familiarity with demonstrative science and that seems to be part of the problem with both Martin Nowak and Richard Dawkins. Respectfully, ---- "
I'm afraid your lack of respect is obvious from this ad hominem observation Father Clifford Stevens.
Thank you for an interesting and revealing exchange. You have made your position very clear.
However, I make a point of withdrawing from discussion once I feel that either mutual respect, objectivity or both have been lost.
I am sorry but a lack of skill in demonstrative science seems to be behind much of the confusion in this important dialogue and therefore the dialogue will break down somewhere. Behind much of the writings coming out of the evolutionary sciences is the unproved assertions that human beings are simply refined animals and behave as such. Biology does not explain the human being and it is bad science, but usually bad logic that is the problem.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
Thanks to John Jacob Lyons for his balanced comments. I would agree that scientific discourse would merit an atmosphere of mutual respect. For example, I am a practising Christian and I never felt any problems reconciling evolutionary studies and religion. The same holds true for Martin Nowak, who acknowledges his Catholic faith in the book you probably did not read. Whatever your fears on the matter might be, they might be unfounded. For example, Nowak does not reduce cultural phenomena to biology or physics, but is exploring successful modes of cooperation at different layers of reality.
You (rightfully, I think) wrote:
Cooperation among human beings is no an evolutionary or biological phenomenon. It is the result of reason, judgment and personal choice.
And reason, judgment and our capacities of personal choice are results of our evolutionary history. Of course, they are not only biological phenomena - they have been shaped by cultural evolution and individual biographies as well.
Ethics cannot be explained by molecular biology, any more than molecular biology can be explained by Physics.
Yes, absolutely. In contemporary evolutionary studies, we are calling that "emergence": The evolutionary process is bringing forth new systems with new features. For example, biological and cultural traditions (co-)evolve in the same universe, but with diverse ways of transmission (such as reproduction or learning). You might be interested in contemporary explorations of biocultural (also called gene-culture-coevolution) evolution:
http://www.scilogs.eu/...-gene-culture-coevolution
Biology does not explain the human being and it is bad science, but usually bad logic that is the problem.
Again, yes: Therefore I am participating in evolutionary studies not as a biologist, but as a doctor in Religionswissenschaft (scientific study of religion). Others are sociologists, psychologists and even philosophers and theologians, all working with biologists in the shared, interdisciplinary field of study. The reductionism you seem to battle has long been surpassed and is a thing of the past, dear Father Stevens.
It is not a thing of the past if you are seeking for the roots of religion and human behavior in evolutionary or molecular biology. I have no problem with science, evolutionary or otherwise, but I do have a problem with trying explain human behavior, ethics and religion as products of evolution or molecular biology. That seems to be the trend, even in the work of Catholic scientists like Martin Nowak. Reason, judgment and personal choice are the roots of human behavior that is specifically human, even though somatic and biological factors are part of the process. But these somatic and biological factors are not determining of human behavior, they are the physical substratum of human judgment, choice and decision-making. They are not the determining factor. To point out that someone is lacking in the rules of demonstrative science is not to question his or her science, it is to question the reasoning process that has led to certain unwarranted conclusions about human behavior and ethics. That is what this debate is really all about, not about someone's competency in the evolutionary and biological sciences. It is my considered opinion that Martin Nowak is on the wrong track. He has taken his research beyond evolution into ethics, religion, human behavior and social science, and trying to explain these phenomena by purely evolutionary
explanations. His research was doomed from the very beginning, and the roots of this mistake was faced in 1943 when Erwin Schrodinger gave two masterly lectures in Dublin, recognizing that one science cannot cross over and explain the results of another science.
Father Clifford Stevens
I can just report that the field of evolutionary studies of religiosity and religions is flourishing with successful experiments, studies, conferences and books. And, again, I am not speaking as a reductionist biologist, but as a scholar in the scientific study of religion. You might want to take a look, for example, at the ERS-homepage:
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/religion/
And, if you would like, you could see a recent chat evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson and I had on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/...1umU&feature=related
If your study of religion and cooperation is studied as part of the evolutionary process rather than a pure historical study, you will be reaching conclusions that do not follow from your premises and would seem to be creating a pseudo-science similar to the progeny recapitulates ontogeny of a century or so ago. Your premise seems to be that human behavior and culture is somehow a product of the evolutionary process. I deny that and it is up to you to show the truth of your premise.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
It seems that we are coming to a point here. You wrote:
Your premise seems to be that human behavior and culture is somehow a product of the evolutionary process.
Yes, you are right - that is definitely what I assert as a scientist.
I deny that and it is up to you to show the truth of your premise.
Empirical sciences are never about absolute truths, but about testable hypotheses, Father Stevens. That is the reason we are calling evolutionary theory a "theory" - it will remain one forever, although there is nothing better available far and wide. I think it is a disgrace that some religious people do not have enough faith in God to embrace scientific methods and findings. Others do, for example Reverend Michael Dowd who is preaching "Thank God for Evolution"!
http://www.scilogs.eu/...evolution-by-michael-dowd
And if you are interested in the thoughts of an eminent biologist who also happened to be another believing Christian, you might like to read (t)his famous text by Theodosius Dobzhansky: "Nothing in Biology makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution":
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/...t.pdf
Let me assure you as an expert in the field: Aggressive denial of evolution is not a good way of defending true faith, Father.
I have no problem with evolution and I agree that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".
I do not agree that human behavior, ethics and cooperation are the product of the evolutionary process, and to state this is not even a valid hypothesis. I am a student of and admirer of Darwin, of Einstein, of Planck, of Schrodinger, of Max Delbruck and Francis Collins, and I have also dug deeply into the Human Genome and the base pairs of the DNA sequences, but it is unscientific to state, with no empirical evidence to support it, that human behavior is part of the evolutionary process. This is not an hypothesis, but a leap of faith. I am no mean student of science myself, including the great developments in molecular biology, and there is nothing in evolutionary science that explains human behavior, human judgment, religion and free will. This is a philosophical bias, not a scientific fact.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
I think the only thing that seems to distinguish our positions is that I would say that it is the duty of scientists to explore any phenomena. If hypotheses borne out of evolutionary theory would finally defect at some frontier, this would change the picture. But the only way to find out would be to try sincerely, and as to now, I don't see such a frontier and I would not abide to any trials in stopping scientific explorations. And I am not particularly impressed by references to dead authorities - after all, Einstein did his great scientific achievements by going beyond Newton. The only reliable way finding out whether evolutionary game theorists are right or wrong partially or entirely concerning human behavior is to explore and test their hypotheses empirically. And that's what we are starting to do.
I totally agree with you that science should examine every phenomena and there should be no limit to scientific research. It is just that I think it is unscientific to say that human behavior can be explained by biological engines or that reason, judgment and free will have their roots in evolutionary dynamics. And it seems to me that much of what is called evolutionary dynamics, or supercooperation is simply the scientific imagination gone wild, and seems to me to enter into the world of Universal Darwinism, which is neither scientific nor the result of careful research. When games theory and Prisoner Dilemma models become the prisms through which phenomena are examined and explained, imagination takes over and science begins to serve an ideological bias. I think that has already happened and you can see it in the very title of some of the new "scientific specialties" like "Religion, Brain and Behavior". The decision has already been made that that which is distinctly and uniquely human is merely the product of brain, biology and DNA sequences. This is not science, it is evolutionary studies out of control and certainly not the result of genuine scientific method or research.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
The best way to challenge any scientific hypothesis is to present a better one. So let me ask you: If human traits and behaviors i.e. in the field of religion did not emerge in the evolutionary process - when and where did they come from?
Evolutionary science cannot answer that any more than Physics can expain Molecular Biology. It is in the province of Anthropology, not that of Biology. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity cannot explain life, even though life forms are composed of atoms, electrons and protons. As long as you limit your research to non-human mammals, your research is valid, but when you enter the domain of Homo Sapiens, you are out of your scientific field and it requires a study of those faculties that are uniquely human. If a Physicist tries to explain the human cell, DNA and Genes on principles of Physics, he simply cannot do so. He has to become a Biologist. If a Biologist tries to explain human behavior on principles of Biology(Evolutionary or otherwise), he cannot do so. He has to become an Anthropologist.Biological principles are not workable or valid in Anthropology. This methodological mistake began with Nino Tinbergen and Konrad Lorenz who saw distinction between Biology and Anthropology and their fields of competence. As for as theory, it will be an anthropological theory, not an evolutionary or biological one. Tinbergen and Lorenz mistook Genus for Specific Differentia in their Ethnological research and created something of an Anthropological Frankenstein as the basis of their research. Evolutionary theories that go beyond Darwin are based on ths study of this Frankenstein version of human beings. It simply does not exist in reality. I can give you a theory, but it must be based, not on what the ancients called De Sensu et Sensato, but on a theory called De Homine. Evolutionary Biology is not a universal science, but unfortunately scientists like Richard Dawkins and Martin Nowak have made it so. Erwin Schrodinger, as a Physics, recognized that in Biology, he was outside his field. Evolutionary Biologist do not have the wisdom to make the same judgment.
Father Clifford Stevens
Correction from my last Comment."This methodological mistake began with Nino Tinbergen and Konrad Lorenz who saw NO
distinction between Biology and Anthropology and their fields of competence."
Father Clifford Stevens
It seems I have to repeat myself: Evolutionary studies of human traits and behaviors are no longer confined to evolutionary biologists, but are taking place in interdisciplinary networks. For example, I am a doctor in the scientific study of religion and fully aware i.e. that genetic and cultural traditions are not transmitted the same way, but are interacting. We are looking for similarities and we are accepting distinctions. And we are exploring how far evolutionary theory is taking us. If there is a final frontier, we will find it not by tabooing, but by open-minded scientific exploration.
I am certainly in favor of interdisciplinary studies and it is about time that such efforts are widespread. But if the basic premise of this cooperation is that human behavior, human judgment, free will and religion have a biological base, the whole effort is useless. There is not a shred of evidence that what is specifically human in Homo Sapiens has a biological base, and that is the root of our debate. Human behavior, ethics, etc. are not the result of biological factors and that seems to be the premise you are working on. You can set up "models" for yourself as prisms to judge human behavior and culture, but the effort is doomed from the beginning because the basic premise is false.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
Some interesting points have arisen since my last post to this thread and I would like to return to this useful discussion.
Let's consider religiosity as an example of a (rather ubiquitous)human behavior. In order to discuss its etiology we need to distinguish between (1) the precocious religiosity shown by small children and reported by Justin Barrett and Deborah Keleman among other researchers and (2) the religiosity of adults.
Firstly consider (1), precocious religiosity. I would explain this in terms of the following three adaptive predispositions (a) the teleological tendency (b) the predisposition to accept the veracity of parental guidance and (c) the need for 'attachment'.
Now I know that Father Stevens has argued that human behavior cannot be explained by biology. Since I would claim that all these predispositions have neural correlates, I may be transgressing Father Stevens's argument but I make no apology for doing so. There is overwhelming scientific agreement that both general somatic and mental development is, to a significant degree, under the control of the genome in conjunction with the prevailing environment. There are genetically mediated correlates for the ontogenetic development of the human eye and, similarly, for the ontogenetic development of the 'rooting reflex' of infants for example. To my knowledge, there is no rival explanation for the etiology of these developments.
Secondly, consider (2), the religiosity of adults. I suggest that the three predispositions I have already mentioned are severely damped but are still operational to a degree. However, there are now powerful additional subjective and cultural factors at work; existential, social and even political. For the sake of brevity, I will assume that it is not necessary for me to go into further detail with regard to these factors. They are well covered in the literature. Of course human reason, judgement and freewill may well be involved either explicitly or implicitly in the assessment of these factors.
This then is a summary of my take on the etiology of religiosity. I would only add that, as I have suggested in my main article on this blog earlier this year, I believe that the process I call Genetic Priming has been the main philogenetic driver of precocious religiosity over evolutionary time.
I hope these thoughts are of interest.
Despite the length of my post above, I need to ask myself a question. Where do you think the human reason, judgement and freewill that you mention toward the end of the post come from?
I suggest that they are all aspects of our intelligence which, in turn, is a function of our particular genetic endowment and our particular life experience/ learning.
I suspect that some would want to introduce 'God' in answer to this question but I can see no need to do so. I would refer dissent to Occam's Razor in this connection.
Welcome back to the conversation.
The root of your work is based on the unproved premise that evolutionary biology is the cause and determinant of human behavior, religion and culture. And your proof is that you have been able to construct "models" to use as prisms into the depths of the human psyche which reveal the complete dependence of Homo Sapiens on evolutionary and biological engines.
But you haven't given one shred of evidence to demonstrate this.
There is no doubt that there is a somatic and psychosomatic substratum to human beings, and that there is interaction between the somatic,psychsomatic and intellectual persons, but your claim that the somastic and psychosomatic powers are determinant of human behavior is simply an assertion pulled out of thin air.
You have made a crossover from biology to human behavior that is invalid and even forbidden by sound scientific method. Erwin Schrodinger and perhaps Max Delbruck recognized this, your "science" is simply not equipped to evaluate the intellect, the reasoning power, the behavior and personal choices of Homo Sapiens and you haven't given me one piece of evidence, except what you call "models", which are the subjective and arbitrare constructions having no basis in evolutionary biology whatsoever,
Father Clifford Stevens
Correction to my last Comment:
"there is interaction between somtic, psychosomatic and intellectual POWERS"
Father Clifford Stevens
You are repeating your false argument about human intellect and biology so frequently on this blog that it has become tedious and bordering on being patronizing.
If your contention were correct, the concept 'The Biology of Religion' would make no sense whatsoever. But, of course, it isn't correct.
It would appear from your posts that your reading of the scientific method may have ended with the 1940s. The seminal hypothetico-deductive method proposed by the great Karl Popper is either ignored or completely misunderstood. Since this work forms the backbone of the modern scientific method, a clear understanding is necessary to a productive discussion of this kind.
Your last but one post on this thread is brim-full of misrepresentations ('straw-men')of what others have written which is forbidden in objective philosophical discussion.
You continue to avoid the question both Michael and I have posed "If human intellect doesn't have its roots in evolutionary biology from whence cometh human intellect"?
All this with great respect Father. You appear to be both sincere and learned. My critique applies solely to the arguments you have put forward.
It is not your scientific method or your background in modern evolutionary theory that I question, it is your basic premise and it has nothing to do with Karl Popper and your appeal to some kind of superior methodology is really a bit highhanded. I work from the premise that religion answers a cosmological question and proceeds from human judgment and human reason faced with the mystery and structure of the Cosmos. There is no empirical evidence that human reason and religion have their roots and cause in evolutionary or biological engines or that human reason and religion are the work of evolutionary causes. I am as famiilar with Karl Popper as you are and I long ago torn apart both his methodology and his epistemological principles.
I lay down three premises for discussion and debate and will welcome any and all opposing viewpoints because I am convinced that the present state of evolutionary science regarding human behavior and religion is untenable and erroneous and leads only to a false understanding of what it means to be human. You deal with biology generally - I deal with it specifically. It is not your method or your knowledge of evolution that I disagree with, it is your epistemological weakness and the creation of evolutionary fictions to back up some of your conclusions.
1st Premise: A human person is the terminus ad quem of human conception and the terminus a quo from which all human embryonic life develops.
2nd Premise: Human gestation is a human subject in a state of somatic organizational and developmental repose, with an integrating principle distinct and separate from the body of the mother.
3rd Premise: The integrating principle of human embryonic life is a human person in the unfolding of its innate human potential, gradually experiencing, expressing and revealing its uniquely human powers.
In the light of these premises, the assertion that human behavior, human reason, ethics and religion are the products of evolutionary powers is rendered obsolete. Karl Popper has been dead for a long time and molecular biology has outdistanced both his methodology and his epistemological limitations.
Respectfully,
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
Thank you for that.
In your 3rd premise you talk about " --- the unfolding of its innate human potential ---"
This begs the simple question "How?". But you seem to offer no suggestion. The 'unfolding' is unexplained and you appear to be content to leave this mystery unexplained. Are we being, subtly, invited to assume that God is lurking here somewhere Father? Are you perhaps afraid of scientific inquiry that might further limit the compass of "the God of the Gaps"?
Also your premises do not seem to work as a syllogism to produce your dismissive conclusion about the scope of evolutionary biology. Perhaps you could elucidate.
How say you?
I did not mention God because God is not a scientific concept and does not belong in this conversation. I tried to reply to your latest Comment, but each time I tried, my text would not go through. I will try again later in the day.
Father Clifford Stevens
The first step in that unfolding is the formation of the zygote from the power of human generation. The second step is meiosis in which the zygote duplicates itself and with this action, human gestation begins.
Adenine - Cytosine- Thymine - Guarine - are found in the genetic structure of all mammals and have a similar function. The question is: in the human embryo, they function for the development of a member of the HUMAN species - what is there in the human embryo that determines that the somatic and psychosomatic structue of a HUMAN being is developing, and not the structure of some other mammalian species? What is the factor in the human embryo which uses these chemical bases for the building of a human body? Apparently, these chemical bases are being directed, determined and modified by something other than their chemical powers, for the development of this particular member of the human species and not some other member of the same species? This is the X Factor and it is not a left-over from some mammalian ancestor, it is a uniquely human power, specific to this paricular embryo and this particular member of the human species.
Father Clifford Stevens
In regard to my last Comment:
You have to conclude that, not only does evolution not enter into the etiology of the human intellect, human behavior, ethics and religion, it does not enter into the etiology of the somatic and psychosomatic structure of the human body itself. Evolution cannot cross the border from non-human mammalian life to human life.
Father Clifford Stevens
You ask "What is the factor in the human embryo which uses these chemical bases for the building of a human body?"
The genome does not only consist of combinations of the chemical bases (C,A,T and G) that eventually code for the amino-acids/ protein building blocks of tissue including neuronal tissue. There are other types of genes (including promoter genes) that turn genes on and off and are able to control the folding of protein at the molecular level to achieve the (adaptive) shaping of that tissue. Genetic science is beginning to unravel all the erstwhile mysteries associated with the inter-working of the genome and its environment in the development of the embryo.
Even though you don't mention God, and possibly unwittingly, your arguments seem to leave an implicit 'God-shaped hole'. However, this hole is rapidly being filled by the genetic scientists as I have indicated above.
Father, unlike many scientists and evolutionary theorists in particular, I believe there are mysteries that science will never solve, however this is definitely not one of them.
May I also point out that you also haven't explained the syllogism that concludes with your dismissal of evolutionary biology in explaining human intellect.
I would also like to say that I feel we are now beginning to make progress in this discussion and I just want to thank you for your contribution to this.
I am familiar with the Human Genome and you cannot appeal to an unknown and undiscovered "erstwhile mysteries" as an argument. I do not take God into account because God is not a scienific concept and I think your forget Gregor Mendel and Georges Lemaitre who could do pretty good science and not bring God into the picture. You must know that you have to be very careful in talking about genes and beware of giving them names and functions based on evolutionary ideas because it will take centuries to unravel the information on the Human Genome.
We will have to be satisfied with the impass we have come to. You claim that the Human Genome and embryonic development is an evolutionary phenomenon, and I deny it and you cannot give any evidence except the work of colleagues to uphold. My claims are based on my own work and research into the embryonic development of Homo Sapiens, and I see no evidence of any evolutionary engines in that development.
Your conclusions seem to make a mockery of what it means to be human and you seem to downgrade the everything that is truly human to the level of an evolutionary automaton. I will leave you to, what I consider, playing games with concepts and fictional constructs that having nothing to do with science and are merely the shadows of the dignity and reality that is Homo Sapiens.
I don't understand how a first class mind can go in that direction without any real evidence, and I wonder what you really feel about yourself when you realize that you are the individual Homo Sapiens that you are treating so shabbily. I hope we can keep in touch and I will be very happy to wrestle with these issues again, since I can see that you are really delightful fellow. I am just worried about the fellows you keep company with. Best wishes,
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
You will know that, on this thread, the redoubtable Father Stevens and I have been discussing whether or not the findings of evolutionary biology/ genetics are relevant in explaining human intellect/ religiosity. We have not reached agreement of course but have made our individual positions clear and have wound up our discussion with mutual respect.
Do you not think that, together, we have demonstrated that the side-stepping of challenging questions, bluff, sophistry and misrepresentation, which are common rhetorical devices outside philosophy/ science, have no place in philosophical/ scientific discussion?
Our conversation has sent me back to ERwin Schrodinger's famous lectures in Dublin in 1943, when he recognized that as a Physicst he could not cross the line into biology, because the principles of Physics did not apply to biology and as a Physicist, he was unequipped to explain biologist phenomena.
My ressearch and study has been the embryonic life of Homo Sapiens and I do not see a shred of evidence that anything resembling evolutionary phenomena at work there and I see, as you know, the attempt to explain molecular biology by the evolutionary engines that apply to non-human mammals fraudulent, unscientific and lacking even a shred of empirical ewvidence. My research library is filled with docomentation to this effect and I can demonstrate with much more clarity and detail the conclusion that I came to in our debate: Evolution does not enter into the etiology of the the Human Genome and, in spite of books like those of Martin Nowak, and perhaps your own, evolution cannot cross the border from the non-human mammalian species to Homo Sapiens. That is a line that nature itself has made impossible.
I entered the scientific field when I was chaplain at Edwards Air Force Base in the 60' where I had a parish of scientific geniuses who introduced me to 3,000 sciences I did not realize existed and I even applied for astronaut training and almost made it, but the General supporting me was killed in a tragic accident. Later, I applied for a position as a Theological Fellow of the Rand Corporation, but they had no funds for that designation. I did fly with Robert White in an F-104 at Mach 2 and have a Mach 2 pin on my lapel. I took part in an Astro-theological Symposium at New Mexico State University in 1966, with Claude Tombaugh present and out of it came a small book which I authored: "Astro-Theology: For the Cosmic Adventure". You can read my critiques of Richard Dawkins atheism on line and I do not attack his brilliant scientific works, but only his entrance into a subject that he knows nothing about.
Our debate is not ended. Your work seems to be, as I mentioned several times, generalizations about biology, but I have worked specifically with the details of human embryonic life where evolutionary doctrine simply does not apply. I don't know what I will call the book but it will not be an attack on evolution because I am a student of Darwin and even of Richard Dawkins in that field. The debate is about whether the evolution enters into the etiology of the molecular biology of Homo Sapiens and I will demonstrate that from the empirical evidence of the human organism itself.
Thank you for a brisk and lively debate, but as you can see, the debate has not ended.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
John Jacob: You should also know that I also reject Intelligent Design and "creation science". Intelligent Design is bad science and even worse theology and the digging up of an old philosophical saw called "occasionalism".
Creation science is a discredited religious belief that science can demonstrate creation, but according to the facts of nature, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, nature can only demonstrate that nature exists, it gives no evidence about its origin. Also, I like this statement of Aquinas about the power of the power and scope of the human intellect: "This is the earthly goal of man: to evolve his intellectual powers to their fullest; to arrive at the maximum of consciousness; to open the eyes of his understanding upon all things so that upon the tablet of his mind, the order of the whole universe and all its parts may be enrolled". Does this look like the product of mindless evolution?
Father Clifford Stevens
John Jacob - Also - causality in time cannot demonstrate the existence of God, but the human intellect can consider causality outside of time -where nature itself cannot reach. According to your view, the human intellect is bound by and bound to the senses. What does that say about the validity of your own reasoning power? Can you really make a universally valid statement about anything?
Father Clifford Stevens
Maybe two quotes by Max Planck might be of help to your discussion.
As to the futile attempts of stopping evolutionary (interdisciplinary!) studies of all living phenomena (including, of course, human beings), I would like to remember Planck's famous saying:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”
And although I do love and life science on an everyday basis, I can't agree more with Max Planck (and Father Stevens on some points, for that):
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
Wishing you all the best! :-)
I have found a title for my book which will be entitled:
The Embryonic "I"
The Psychosomtic Specification of the
Human Embryo
and it will be dedicated to Erwin Schrodinger who, as a Physcist, dared to ask the question: What is life? I will demonstrate from human embryonic life that Homo Sapiens in his(or her) totality is untouched by evolution, and that human behavior, human judgment,human reason and religion are not part of the evolutionary process. I have enjoyed our debate and hope it will continue since the very nature and dignity of human beings and human nature are at stake.
Father Clifford Stevens
I have your paper "Two Realms: One Winner" in hand and will do you the courtesy to read it carefully, not to criticize, but to understand more fully your thinking on these matters. I will be looking for articles and lectures by yourself and Dr. Lyons for I am sure you have both been prolific in sharing your research and your ideas.
Father Clifford Stevens
Father Stevens -- In order to avoid confusion, may I point out that we started our discussion about the epistemology of knowledge ('monism v. pluralism') following Michael's report of the Conference in Barcelona. Perhaps best to add any new contributions to that thread?
Michael, you quote Max Planck, “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
In my opinion, the logic of this quote does not stand up to critical analysis.
The workings of my heart are 'knowable' to me through science even though it is undoubtedly part of me.
Having said that, it IS true that the REALITY of the workings of my heart are not knowable to me. This is not because I am part of the mystery I'm trying to solve but because each of us can only access reality via our consciousness; and consciousness is only our (sometimes misleading) MODEL of reality.
For the same reason, the reality of the workings of Dianne's (my partner) heart are not knowable to me even though it is not part of me.
Also, it is not clear from your quotation from Max Planck precisely what he considers to be the " -- ultimate mystery of nature". If he means the mystery of how something (time/space) came from nothing, I would agree with him; but not for the reason he offers.
To continue our dialogue and debate:
In 1943, modern science took a hug step forward when Erwin Schrodinger, one of the pioneers of Quantum Mechanics, gave two lectures at Trinity College in Dublin on "What is Life?" and "Mind and Matter". This was the first time that a scientist would admit that his science had limitations and did not explain the whole of reality. He recognized with surprise and regret that the principles of Physics could not explain the new science of Molecular Biology and that his science had found a boder beyond which it could not cross and a natural barrier to applying principles and conclusions of Quantum Mechanics to life forms
What he recognized was that Quantum Mechanics was not a universal science, but a study of one aspect of reality and that its principles and laws could not explain the phenomena revealed by the life sciences,in particular, Molecular Biology, which at that time was in its infancy and had to await the discovery of DNA a decade later reveal the inner workings of life forms.
This was true even though atoms, photons, electrons, protons and other micromatter particles were part of the composition of living cells, but the cells themselves did not follow the laws of Physics. Here were two realities, joined together in a unity, each following its own laws, one the material subsratum of the other, and neither interfering with each others activities or composition. What it revealed to Schrodinger was a new world of physical reality that in some respect contradicted the composition of matter, as he knew it, giving new forms to matter that he found startingly strange and wonderfull, for which, in his own science, there was no explanation. Nature itself had placed a barrier for which the laws of Physics did not apply, even though the subatomic particles that were part of the composition of life forms still followed their own laws without interference.
Schrodinger is the father of my inquiry into the matters we have been discussing....
Father Clifford Stevens
I have jumped ahead here. I was not aware that we were contrasting monism and pluralism, although I believe I did say something about epistemology in one of my Comments. My epistemology is simple: that which gives reality to the thing, gives reality to the mind. The same reality that gives "being" to the thing likewise gives reality to the intellect. That which is the principle of actual being is the principle of cognition. It is reality that lights up the mind - but is by judgment that the mind grasps reality. And , human judgment follows the laws of demonstrative science, the laws of which are as old as Aristotle. The mind eats reality, in a sense.
Father Clifford Stevens
Before you reply can you tell me what an "epistemological pluralist" is? I have Dr. Blume's report on the Barcelona Conference in hand and I am puzzled by that designation.
Father Clifford Stevens
Thanks for the question.
An epistemological pluralist is someone who believes that there is more than one way of accessing knowledge/truths and more than one kind of knowledge. For example; science, religion, art etc.
You probably realize that I am an epistemological monist believing that the scientific method is the only legitimate route to knowledge.
Thank you, and I would be interested in knowing what you mean by the scientific method. After all, there are more than 10,000 sciences, each, I would imagine, with its own methodology. I think we are discussing chiefly the evolutionary and biological sciences, where we seem to differ, at least in regard to their
role in human behavior, reason and judgment and religion. I claim their role in human behavior, human reason and human judgment and in religion is non-existent and that evolution does not enter even into the Human Genome, the human body or in human development of any kind, and I assert that that is a law of nature.
I see your so-called "proofs" and game theory, fictional constructs having no bearing whatsoever on human embryonic life or on any phase of human development. Your "models" seem to be sociological or mathematical overlays to give the impression that these overlays actually exist within the biological or cognitive structure of the human organism.
You seem to have built up a body of arcane terms and phenomena totally unrelated to the somatic, psychosomatic and cognitive cartography discernible to scientific investigation. And the effort in some quarters of the evolutionary scientific community to see in the life of bees some parallel with human social community is so far-fetched as to be almost laughable.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska
Addendum to my last Comment.
I look upon the senses and human reason as the sources of knowledge. If by epistemological monism you mean that you accept only the senses as the sources of human knowledge, I would have to disagree.
Reason is used in law, in forensics, in medicine, and in a host of human arts and sciences. In fact, most of our knowledge comes from the use of reason which can reason from the known to the unknown on the basis of knowledge revealed by the senses.
Father Clifford Stevens
I think I should make it clear at the very beginning of our extended conversation what I am claiming and can demonstrate from human embryology:
Darwinian evolution does not include Homo Sapiens. That is the presumption of your scientific work and therefore any scientific work based on that presumption is erronious.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska