Skip to main content

Darwinian Niches

Darwinian Micheal Ruse has posted a longish but interesting essay to the Philosophy of Biology blog. He's responding to another writer, Conway Morris, who has suggested that life evolves to fill various niches - water, land, air, etc. Conway cites as proof the fact that we can find examples of where unrelated life forms took very similar paths and wound up with very similar designs, which suggests that there are pressures on evolution that favour some paths more than others. The probabilities are not equal. Ruse then goes on to get very philosophical and very interesting by asking if there is a reason to think that all of the available niches are visible to us. Ruse's answer is: No. So, if there are more niches than we know of, and there is pressure on life forms to fill those niches, perhaps they are already occupied?
If we do have a progression of niches - water, land, air, culture - why stop with culture and intelligence? Why not move on to another basic niche - why not move on to an infinity of such niches? You might say that you cannot imagine what a further niche would be like. This is no argument to a Darwinian. Natural selection has made us able to deal with our experienced circumstances - getting out of the jungle and on to the plains, for a start. There was neither need nor obligation to give us the powers to peer into the ultimate mysteries of creation. Being too philosophical can have its downside. It makes for worry and doubt and indecision. Is there reason to think that there is more than we can comprehend fully? Today's science answers affirmatively. Think of quantum mechanics. "Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye; or than meets the all too limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-sized objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa" (p. 19). Should we think of the next niche up as the world of super intelligence, perhaps the sort of dimension reported on by mystics? Well, you can if you want, but speaking as a Darwinian this is not terribly helpful or insightful. The whole point is that it is a dimension of which we are ignorant. It is not be so much a world where the laws of nature as we know them - logic and mathematics, too - are broken. It is certainly not be a world to bring comfort to anti-scientists like the Creationists. It is simply be a world beyond our ken.
Much to his credit, Ruse allows what philosophers of science have been saying for a long time. Positivism, which over zealous use of Occam's Razor leads to, is a chosen method, not a neutral one, and it brings unproven assumptions with it. Using such a methodology to "prove" the non existence of God or that metaphysics has no value is a joke. Why is it a joke? Because it's utterly circular; the conclusion is contained in the method and not in the proof offered. What Ruse is suggesting in this essay is that Darwinism neither proves or repudiates religion, but does raise questions that it cannot answer and that ought to tell us something about the limits of its method and claims made in its name.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi