The origins of man

The title of this post is similar to the title of a work by Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, his second most famous, although it can't be compared to his most famous work, The Origin of Species. But I’m not going to talk about Darwin or this book, as I dedicated another post to it before. I’m going to speak about a book with a similar title, Los Orígenes del Hombre (The Origins of Man) by Francisco de Paula Rodríguez Valls, with whom I’ve collaborated more than once and whom I’ve mentioned in another post in this blog.

In a similar way as my books The Fifth Level of Evolution and Evolución biológica y evolución cultural en la historia de la vida y del hombre, this book aims to show the uniqueness of man in relation to the other living beings. Its point of view is somewhat more philosophical than mine, but we agree on almost everything.

The theory of evolution, is it science?

In three previous posts (this was the latest), I wrote more or less the following words:

The scientific theory of evolution is strongly supported by data from other sciences, such as embryology, comparative anatomy, paleontology, biogeography, and molecular biology (DNA analysis).

Since, despite everything, there are still those who doubt the scientific nature of this theory, in this post I will expand on the previous paragraph, explaining in a little more detail the scientific data that favor evolution.

Religious persecution of scientists?

William Harvey

This summer, Jesús Lizcano published an article in El Imparcial entitled. A memory for the scientists persecuted in history (my translation). He classifies the persecuted scientists into three groups: a) persecuted for political reasons; b) persecuted for religious reasons; and c) persecuted for reasons of sexual orientation. Here I am going to refer to those in the second group, which I find debatable.

Of course, among the eleven scientists persecuted for religious reasons, according to Lizcano, Hypatia and Galileo could not be missing. They are mentioned once and again, often with obvious exaggerations, as shown by the fact that many people believe that Galileo was burned alive by the Inquisition, when in fact he was sentenced to house arrest, softened over time. But here I am going to talk about the other nine mentioned in the article.

Mistakes regarding natural selection

Charles Darwin

Since Charles Darwin coined this term, and included it in the title of his famous book, published in 1859, the term natural selection has been poorly understood, especially by non-specialists. Let’s review a few of the most frequent mistakes:

• Natural selection is a force that acts on living beings to cause evolution. This is not true. Natural selection is not a force, nor an object, nor an interaction, nor a phenomenon. It is simply a statistical observation. What is observed is the fact that, in general, individuals better adapted to their environment tend to leave more descendants than those less adapted. Nothing else. It is, therefore, a matter of common sense, not the result of the external action of a mysterious force.

A new fine-tuning case and the “great design”

Almost every case of fine-tuning discussed so far concerns nuclear reactions and their consequences, in the realm of the very small. This is what could happen if the universal constants and parameters were not fine-tuned:

• Either there would be no hydrogen in the universe, and the stars would last too short a time for life to appear.
• Or the fusion of hydrogen to give helium would not be possible, so there would be no stars.
• Or oxygen or carbon, essential elements for life, would not be generated in stars.

In all these cases, concepts and ideas are drawn from particle physics, astronomy, and cosmology.

Is science opposed to faith?

Charles Darwin

The opposition between science and faith is a nineteenth-century invention. And it was not scientists who invented it, since most of them were believers. Those responsible were atheist philosophers such as Marx, Feuerbach, Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. I count Marx among philosophers, even though he abhorred philosophy, which he considered dead (he said in the Manuscripts), just as Stephen Hawking did a century and a half later, as I commented in this post. I once said that Marx would have been horrified to know that he is studied today in the history of philosophy, for he did not consider himself a philosopher, but an economist.

Why we have no great men today

G.K. Chesterton

First, a clarification: I won’t let myself be dragged by political correctness. I’m not going to change the title of this post to “great human beings.” For me, the word “man” (equivalent to the Latin homo) still has a main generic meaning, different from the meaning whose Latin antecedent is vir (male), opposed to woman or female.

The absence of great men is a common place today and affects almost all fields: