Category Archives: Science

Are There iPhones Elsewhere in the Universe?

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, I was immersed in the splendor of Bryce Canyon. The one word that most often cropped up whenever Park Rangers described our surroundings was “unique.” We were told how “nowhere else in the world” are the “hoodoos” (the name given to the odd rock formations that are the Park’s main attraction) as abundant, as varied and as spectacular as in Bryce Canyon. I can believe it.

The origin of these hoodoos can be traced to a unique combination of “frost wedging” erosion combined with acidic rainwater acting on the limestone that primarily makes up the Canyon’s cliffs.

This started me thinking — the late-at-night-when-you-can’t-sleep sort of thinking.

What if, back in time, one of these factors had been slightly different? These Bryce Canyon hoodoos might have never been created and we would not be enjoying them today. Given that the Canyon is “unique,” this further means that there would be no other place on Earth with such hoodoos. In the end, we would likely never know that something like Bryce Canyon was a possibility.

Taking this to its next logical step, it suggests that there may well be other incredible geological possibilities that we have no idea could exist — because the “unique” conditions required for their formation have never occurred.

When you think about, why stop with geologic formations? By the same logic, there are a likely uncountable number of plant and animal species that might have appeared on Earth over the course of evolution — but never have. We have no idea what these species might be like. We do know that there have been some amazingly weird species that have existed but have since gone extinct. Potential species that have never existed at all could be even weirder.

In fact, according to some scientists, it’s actually quite lucky that we humans exist. Rather than some predictable culmination of the evolutionary process, we may well be a “unique” evolutionary accident — much like Bryce’s hoodoos.

Stephen J. Gould made exactly this sort of argument in Wonderful Life. Sure, natural selection played an important role. But, at key points in our history, there were forks-in-the-road. Natural selection was not always the deciding factor determining which direction was taken. For example, the earliest chordates (our “backboned” ancestors) appeared during the Cambrian period. At least one such chordate species survived the mass extinction of species that followed. If not, we would not be here today. However, there was no guarantee that such a species would survive. Chordates did not have some clear selective advantage at this early stage. Bad luck (a long drought in the “wrong” place at the “wrong” time) and these early chordates might have gone extinct. If so, as the argument goes, the eventual evolutionary path that led to humans would have been stopped in its tracks.

As Gould put it: “Wind the tape of life back…and let it play again. If {a chordate} does not survive in the replay, we (humans) are wiped out of future history…”

In the same way, the emergence of mammals as the major large animals on the planet might have never happened if a unique and unpredictable event (a meteor?) had not led to the extinction of dinosaurs. Without such an event, this too might have short-circuited the eventual appearance of humans.

In the end, Gould concludes that the odds that humans would ever come to exist on Earth (actually the odds that any sort of large multi-cellular organisms would ever exist) is incredibly small — despite the generally favorable-for-life conditions that existed on Earth from its very beginning.

Reflecting on all of this, I extrapolated one more step — to the possibility of life (especially “intelligent” human-like life) on other planets. Some argue that, given the presumed nearly infinite number of planets in the universe, there must be life like ours on at least a few other planets out there. Perhaps. But maybe life on Earth is “unique” — in a similar way to the hoodoos in Bryce Canyon. Maybe, despite the size of the universe, the probability of the evolution of intelligent life is so low that we are the only planet where it occurred.

Let’s go one step further. Even if there are human-like species elsewhere in the universe, what are the odds that they have iPhones? I don’t mean this facetiously. What I really mean is this:

As with humans or hoodoos, the appearance of iPhones (or any other similar technological device) is the result of a lengthy cascade of necessary preceding events. Before Apple could invent the iPhone, there needed to be Mac OS X, cell towers and more primitive smartphones. There needed to be an Internet and a World Wide Web. And that’s just the recent stuff. Going back further, there needed to be computers in general, whose existence required the invention of integrated circuits which, in turn, were derived from transistors that were the descendants of vacuum tubes. All of these technologies couldn’t exist without modern manufacturing techniques, which are in turn dependent on electricity. And back and back we go…to the prehistoric invention of the first tool by a hominid species.

In some sense, all the natural materials needed to build an iPhone have been present on Earth for millions, perhaps billions, of years. But it required this lengthy train of events before the materials could be assembled into Apple’s superstar device. Were these events inevitable — at least once hominids appeared on Earth and the ball really began rolling? If so, we should expect an iPhone, or something quite similar, to exist everywhere else in the universe where human-like creatures might have evolved.

Or, as suggested as possible via Gould’s hypothesis, might the iPhone be the result of a series of (sometimes lucky) events that are unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere — even on other planets with species otherwise similar to our own (assuming such planets exist)? If so, we might be the only species in the universe with iPhones — or anything close to it. We could be the only species who can, as E.T. put it, “phone home.”

Or maybe there’s an alien Steve Jobs somewhere on a distant planet, just now getting ready to reveal his company’s iPhone at a Special Event. Hold on; I’m going to check my email. Maybe I got an invitation.

The Dover Trial Merits Top Ten Consideration

Posted on by

Having now read several “top ten news stories of the decade” lists, such as this one from the Associated Press, I was disappointed to see that one of my top choices was nowhere to be found.

What is my choice? It’s the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District “evolution” trial of 2005. Without doubt, it is the most significant such trial in U.S. history, easily outdistancing even the Scopes trial.

At least for supporters of evolution, the Dover trial showcased the arguments and motives of both sides of this debate in the starkest and clearest of terms. Scientists were permitted to offer evidence for evolution with a detail and scope rarely if ever before seen in a legal forum. The deceptions and religious motives of the opposing side were made equally clear. This culminated in a judge’s ruling that was a more thorough indictment of “intelligent design” than anyone had predicted — or might have even hoped for.

With related stories, such as the voting out of office of all the Dover school board members who supported the intelligent design policy, this story combined melodrama with science. No wonder than that it has been the subject of numerous books (including my favorite, The Battle over the Meaning of Everything) and a superb Nova episode (Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial).

The evolution debate casts a wide shadow — far beyond this trial. While there is no debate among scientists, the issue continues to play a role in national politics, cropping up for example in the 2008 presidential election via Sarah Palin’s support for creationism.

The Dover trial did not put an end to the creationist/intelligent design movement. No trial could do that. But it has apparently resulted in a permanent shift in strategy. The movement has curtailed, if not entirely cut back, its attempts to force intelligent design into school curricula based on claims that ID is science — especially so if a court challenge seems likely. If for no other reason, this trial deserves serious consideration as one of the top news stories of the decade. It’s certainly on my list.

(Atheist) Signs for Our Times

Posted on by

In a New York Times column, Nicholas Kristof expresses hope that a new crop of books, with titles like “The Case for God,” will lead to a truce in the “religious wars.” This is just one of several articles I have read recently — that all seem to suggest that prominent atheists (such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris) represent a form of intolerance that is equal to those of religious fundamentalists at the opposite extreme. What we need to find, so the argument goes, is some middle compromise.

I have already stated my general opposition to this viewpoint. I won’t repeat all of those arguments here. I will, however, point out one particular dismay: Although the “truce” articles pay lip service to the need for accommodations by “both sides,” the onus of responsibility always seems to fall on the atheists. It’s as if they are saying: “Things were going so well before people like Dawkins came along to upset the apple cart. Can’t we just return to the civility we used to have?”

First off, unless you ignore the inflammatory statements made over the years by religious extremists, it can hardly be said that things were civil before Richard Dawkins arrived on the scene. To the contrary, any superficial appearance of civility was only because religion has had the playing field to itself, fending off criticism by claiming that it should be immune to critique. The “new atheists” did not create the current controversy. Rather, they are simply the ones to be outspoken in pointing out that there is another possibility to consider (a bit like the child who shouts “the emperor has no clothes”). If one believes that God does not exist, then it follows that all religions are wrong and are based on a myth. It is not intolerant to point out this implication, any more than it is intolerant to point out that humans are the product of evolution.

All of this, however, is not the primary reason for my blog entry today. Rather, it is something more specific. On December 2, a New York Times article described a new advertising campaign for atheism. It features signs on buses and trains with statements such as “No god? … No problem!” and “Be good for goodness’ sake.” A major sponsor of the campaign is the American Humanist Association.

In a letter to the editor, Edd Doerr (a former head of the American Humanist Association) wrote that he was “embarrassed” by the campaign. He argued that we should avoid the divisiveness resulting from these ads and instead focus on those things we (atheists and religious believers) hold in common, such as “peace, civil liberties, religious freedom, the environment, social justice…” He described the signs as “name-calling and invective.”

Whew! I was both saddened and angry to see this letter. To me, it captures almost everything that is wrong with the current criticism. To have it written by someone within the humanist movement was especially disheartening.

First of all, to suggest that these signs represent “name-calling and invective” is almost libelous. They are incredibly tame, especially compared to the true invective that is often directed toward atheists. “Be good for goodness’ sake”? Where is the invective in this? If atheists are not to be “allowed” to express their views even in these mild terms, in what form can we express our views? Or, to turn it around, should any signs promoting a religious belief, no matter how mild, be banned as well?

But let’s put all that aside. Suppose we accept the idea, however wrong, that these signs are provocative and hostile in some way. Does this mean that these signs are necessarily a bad thing? Hardly. When it comes to making progress against discrimination, being provocative has often been a requirement.

Where would African Americans be today if Rosa Parks had quietly sat in the back of the bus? Or if Martin Luther King had never staged a sit-in? Where would women’s rights be today if not for the provocations of people such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinham — women who were criticized as “strident” in expressing their beliefs?

The actions of such people may not be the only ingredients necessary to move the country forward. Conciliation will also be needed. But without these actions to lead the way, there will be no movement at all.

As such, these signs represent a mild and relatively polite form of political activism. If nothing else, they help make it more acceptable for atheists to be open about their beliefs and will ultimately lead to greater tolerance of such beliefs (see this Wikipedia page for a discussion of discrimination against atheists). We may actually already be seeing the beginnings of this shift. As pointed out in the above-cited NYT article, there is a “growing number of nonbelievers. Fifteen percent of Americans identified themselves as having ‘no religion’ in a 2008, up from 8 percent in 1990…”

Sorry Edd, but it is the rest of us who should be embarrassed by you. Your letter represents the sort of frightened head-in-the-sand attitude that, if followed a half-century ago, would have resulted in blacks still drinking from separate water fountains today. As an atheist, I am proud of these signs. I also look forward to the day when they are no longer needed.

Nicholas Wade on Evolution: Strike Two

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran a review of Richard Dawkin’s latest book on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth. The review, written by Nicholas Wade, had a very troubling slant. In what I view as its most grievous error, Wade contended that Dawkins “doesn’t know what a theory is,” In saying this, Wade gave support to the discredited view that “evolution is only a theory” and thus easily dismissed. Frankly, I expected better from the New York Times.

This isn’t just my opinion. The Times initially posted two Letters to the Editor from eminent scientists, both critical of the review. Adding that they received an “unusually large number” of letters “from readers who identified themselves as scientists or philosophers,” the Times posted a further collection of letters — all critical.

Apparently, this was not enough to convince the Times to itself be a bit more critical in evaluating Mr. Wade’s writing. He was back again with a Week-in-Review column titled “The Evolution of the God Gene.” Here he makes at least three very questionable assertions.

First is the claim that the ubiquity of religion in human culture suggests that there may be a gene for religion, favored by natural selection. Hence the title of the column. A gene that directly codes for a belief in God is almost certainly a gross over-simplification of how genetics and evolution works — even if there were some overall truth to Wade’s assertion.

But it gets worse. Wade next asserts that the presumed presence of a God gene implies that religion has a “constructive role” in society and should thus be viewed “favorably.” This logic runs counter to a wealth of literature that correctly points out that just because something may be favored by natural selection does not mean that we should view it as “good.”

For example, there is research that suggests a genetic evolutionary basis for human infidelity and even rape. There is certainly not a consensus of agreement on this matter. But even among those who support the viewpoint, no one would argue that this means human societies should promote infidelity or rape. Nor does it mean that humans should not consciously work to override what, in our present society, is a negative evolutionary inheritance. More generally for any trait, even if it was useful in our evolutionary past, this does not mean it remains so today. This extends to any supposed “God gene” as well.

Finally, Wade’s assertions move from the distorted and incorrect to the truly absurd. He correctly notes that a supposed evolutionary basis for religion would “neither prove nor disprove the existence of gods.” The problem is that the rest of the article implies that this point is largely irrelevant. That is, he argues that, if religion has the “benefits” he proposes, we should support religion even if its most fundamental assertion is false.

I’m sorry. To travel from what is at best a questionable premise to a conclusion that we should all close our eyes and support a belief even if it has no more veracity than a fairy tale — borders on the ridiculous.

Once again, I am a bit mystified that the New York Times saw fit to publish this article, which now amounts to “strike two” for Wade. Maybe, one more and he’s out.

As for Wade himself, he has just published a book titled “The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures.” I’m guessing that the God Gene column amounts to a summary of and promotion for his book.