The Synthesis of Science and Faith in Western History

S.Augustin, by Louis Comfort Tiffany
Lightner Museum

By studying the history of science, one fact becomes evident: while other civilizations reached remarkable technical, mathematical, or astronomical heights, within European Christendom germinated a systematic, accelerated, and extraordinary scientific development, incomparable to that of any other civilization, past or present. Why this spectacular difference? The answer is not a matter of chance, but of worldview. Science and faith are not adversaries, but pieces of a puzzle designed with astonishing precision.

The supposed war between science and faith is a false diatribe fueled by nineteenth-century prejudices. While science deals with the material and experimental world, philosophy and faith deal with being and purpose. The error of scientists like Stephen Hawking was to declare that philosophy is dead and then, immediately afterward, propose theories (such as model realism or the multiverse) that are philosophical speculations.

Science and civilizations

In my book Biological Evolution and Cultural Evolution in the History of Life and Man, published in Spanish, I analyze the cultural history of 23 civilizations and compare their evolution. In the particular case of science, I wrote this:

...the first-generation civilizations (Mesopotamia, Egypt and the American) reached their maximum scientific development in mathematics and astronomy. Egypt and Mesoamerica added medicine to these sciences. A second-generation (Greco-Roman) and a third-generation civilization (Islam) also practiced the natural sciences. As for the West, it is a unique and unprecedented case, as its scientific development has been overwhelming.

...astronomy was the first cultivated science... Mathematics emerged in parallel... It was soon found that both sciences were related, for mathematics supported astronomy, making it possible to perform complex calculations and predictions.

The pagan religions... tried to predict the future, using for that purpose sacrificed animals, which led to an accumulation of anatomical knowledge, soon applied to man, which mixed with ancient knowledge about the properties of medicinal plants, led to the formation of a corpus of medical doctrines.

On the other hand, the development of the physical, chemical and biological sciences was less urgent... and so it was attempted only by civilizations that had freed from the necessities of survival an important part of human work... This happened for the first time in Greece, the cradle of philosophy and most of the modern sciences.

Is time an illusion?

Albert Einstein

Physicists sometimes deny the reality of irreversible time and consider it an illusion, a psychological phenomenon. In a letter of condolence written in 1955, Einstein said this: ...the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, although persistent. A curious way to comfort those who have lost a beloved one. His reasons for saying this were the following:

·         In Newton equations of universal gravitation, if the sign of the variable representing time is changed, the equations don’t change. If we look at the film of a gravitational process, the theory predicts that we won’t be able to detect if the projection was made in the right sense or in reverse.

·         The same is true of Maxwell equations, which describe the behavior of electromagnetic waves.

·         The same is true of Einstein equations of General Relativity, which replace Newton equations to describe gravity.

·         The same happens with the Schrödinger equation, the basis of quantum mechanics.

But there is a problem: the equations mentioned do not make all of physics. The second principle of thermodynamics implies the existence of an arrow of time. In 1928, in a book titled The nature of the physical world, the inventor of this term (Arthur Eddington), said the following: if your theory [opposes] the second law of thermodynamics... [it will] collapse in deepest humiliation.

Every physical theory is a simplified abstraction where some parts of reality have been eliminated. If the irreversibility of time is one of those simplifications, it is not surprising that the final result is always reversible. In real events, however, there is no abstraction or simplification. All the physical theories, including the second law of thermodynamics, must be applied together. If this is done, the alleged temporal symmetry goes away.

·        

Newton and his apple

One of the first applications of Newton’s theory describes the fall of an apple. If a film being projected shows several pieces of an apple on the ground, which suddenly set in motion and gather in a single fruit, which then rises upwards until it gets attached to a tree, would we doubt that it has been projected in reverse? The fact that we don’t is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

·         This also applies to the movements of celestial bodies. Imagine a recording of Mercury moving in its orbit, with the sun visible. By studying the solar sunspots we could deduce whether the film is projected correctly or in reverse. Sunspots are a consequence of thermodynamic phenomena.

·         Radioactive decay is another example of a theoretically reversible process that in practice is irreversible. In fact, the proportion of uranium-238 and lead-206 in a rock provides a reliable method to calculate its age. The chain of disintegrations from uranium to lead is far more likely than the reverse chain, although physical theories affirm that both things could happen in theory.

·         Whatever Schrödinger equation says, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics requires an irreversible time. If a photon hits an electron with some energy, the electron is left in two overlapping spin states. If the spin is measured, the quantum superposition collapses into a positive or a negative value. This process involves a direction of time: first comes the impact of the photon, then the electron in two superimposed states, finally a measurement and a quantum collapse. The reverse process cannot happen.

In these examples, when all of physics is taken into account without excluding thermodynamics, the supposed reversibility of time disappears. Apparently physicists put their theories above reality, doing the opposite of what the scientific method demands. Not even great men like Einstein were exempt.

El mismo artículo en español
Thematic thread on Time: Next

Manuel Alfonseca

Why science can’t explain everything

The difficulty of explaining everything is not due to our mental weakness, but to the very structure of the universe. In recent centuries we have discovered that the fabric of the cosmos can be considered on several different levels. While the next level has not been discovered, what happens in the previous one cannot be explained, it can just be described. Consequently, for the last known level we can never have explanations, we can only have descriptions.

Let's look at a little history:

1. Eighteenth-century chemists discovered many new substances. Not knowing what they were, all they could do was describe them in catalogs of properties, but they had no explanation of those properties.

Natural selection is more complicated than we thought

Jacques Monod

In his famous popular book Le hasard et la nécessité (1970), Jacques Monod said that evolution is the result of the interaction of two types of phenomena: chance (mutations, environmental changes) and necessity (natural selection) .

More precisely, natural selection can be considered as the action of a random element (the environment) over another random element (the genetic make-up of living beings). According to the synthetic theory of evolution, who is now over 80 years old, that action is quasi-deterministic (Monod’s nécessité).

A further development of the synthetic theory of evolution is Richard Dawkins’s selfish gene theory, which asserts that adult living beings are just the means that allow genes to perpetuate. Although it had some significant detractors (Stephen Jay Gould, for instance), this theory was accepted by many biologists in the two decades after its statement.

However, in recent years, advances in genomics and evolutionary biology are beginning to question the accuracy of the synthetic theory of evolution and the selfish gene. Make no mistake: this does not mean that the theory of evolution is in question, what is being discovered is the fact that things are not as simple as they seemed. The following is a sample of some of the problems detected, culled from the book The year in evolutionary biology, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (2008).

·         Epigenesis: genes are more interconnected than thought. A mutation in a gene can make another gene work in a completely different manner, complicating the action of natural selection.

·         Quasi-neutrality: slightly deleterious mutations seem to be immune to natural selection and are perpetuated over generations.

·       

The tree of life

  The development and hybridization of viviparous beings (which include such different organisms as mammals and flowering plants, among others) are not as simple as implied by the Dobzhansky-Muller principle, associated with the synthetic theory of evolution. Hitherto unsuspected effects take a part, such as genomic imprinting (substantial differences in the expression of maternal and paternal genes during development).

·         The fundamental dogma of the synthetic theory (the genotype uniquely determines the phenotype) is now questionable. Not only it is true (what was already known) that the genotype is plastic, and depending on the environment can lead to several different phenotypes (to see this, just compare the different types of cells of the same organism, which are very different, although they share the same genome). What is unexpected is the finding that several different genotypes may result in the same phenotype; a setback for Dawkins’s selfish gene theory. The relationship between genotype (genes) and phenotype (the physical aspect of the living adults) happens to be many-to-many in both directions, and the development of the phenotype from the genotype is more deeply influenced by the environment than previously thought.

The same post in Spanish
Thematic thread on Evolution: Preceding Next

Manuel Alfonseca

Science is a tool

Francis Bacon

The utopia The New Atlantis, written by Francis Bacon, a contemporary of Galileo and pioneer of modern philosophy of science, describes a perfect society that would automatically arise from the practice of science, which the inhabitants of the island of Bensalem have made the basis of their society and its government. Like many of his encyclopedic followers, who a century later created the myth of indefinite progress, Bacon believed that science in the future will save man and solve all human problems, opening the way to a paradise on Earth.

This mistake is common. Tools are often confused with their good uses, forgetting that the same tools can also be misused. Let’s look at a few examples, among the thousands that could be cited:

Classifying living beings: Cladistics or complexity levels

The tree of life

Since Aristotle, living beings have been classified in kingdoms. At first there were two: plants, practically unmoving, and animals, capable of active movement.

When Antony van Leeuwenhoek discovered microorganisms, biologists tried to maintain this two-fold division, integrating some with animals (amoebas and Paramecium), others with plants (bacteria and microscopic algae and fungi). But at that level, the separation between animals and plants is blurry, and in the mid twentieth century a third kingdom was added to the other two: protists, unicellular living beings.

A little later, biologists came to the conclusion that the kingdom of plants should be divided into two: fungi at one side, all the other plats (metaphyta) at the other. By 1975, therefore, there were four different kingdoms.

What's the use of a child?

The importance of basic research

The secretary of the Royal Society of Sciences stood up and said:

“Mr. Faraday has the floor.”

“In today’s lecture, rather than speaking about a scientific subject, I’ll perform an experiment before your eyes. But first, allow me a short historical introduction. As you know, Oersted, Ampère and Arago proved that an electric current can give rise to magnetic phenomena. If you set a magnetic needle near an inactive copper wire, the needle points North. If a current passes through the wire, the needle deflects. If the wire is coiled and a current goes through it, the coil behaves as a magnet with two poles, North and South, the same as a typical ordinary magnet.

The precariousness of scientific theories

It is better to keep a certain skepticism about scientific theories,. Not only because these theories are always simple approximations tuned by further advances, as in the case of Newtonian gravitation and Einstein’s general relativity, quoted in a previous article. It may also be the case that a scientific theory, after decades, centuries or even millennia of total domination, turns out to be simply wrong. This has happened many times in all the sciences, as will be seen with a sample of a few selected cases.

·         In astronomy, Aristotle’s theory of quintessence, arguing that the heavenly bodies are not made of the same stuff as the Earth, was the standard theory for nearly two thousand years.

·         In mathematics, the problem of squaring the circle with ruler and compass wasted efforts for centuries until it was shown to have no solution. Although amateurs keep trying, at least professionals no longer have to waste their time with the alleged demonstration they regularly receive.

Lavoisier

·         In chemistry, the phlogiston theory, which dominated for nearly a century, tried to solve the problem of combustion assuming that a burning body loses a part of its substance (the mysterious phlogiston). The real process turned out to be precisely the opposite. Rather than losing phlogiston, burning bodies absorb oxygen, as Lavoisier showed in the late eighteenth century.

·         In physics, for almost half a century in the late nineteenth century, no one doubted the existence of the ether, a mysterious substance with strange properties, which should provide support for the movement of electromagnetic waves. In the early twentieth century it was concluded that the ether does not exist.

This is what science says about human life

With respect to current discussions about abortion, protection of life, and the rights of the pregnant woman, I think it timely to recall the scientific consensus about human life:

·        The life of every living being generated by means of sexual reproduction begins with the fertilization of the female by the male gamete, i.e. with the formation of the zygote. That is the point in time when a new being appears, of the same species as its parents, whose genetic endowment (its DNA) is different from that of its parents and any other living being of the same species, except for identical twins. This new living being will keep its genetic endowment until its death. This is the reason why the eggs of sea turtles and other endangered species are protected, because they are individuals of those species.

·        In every species of living beings who do not go through metamorphosis (including all reptiles, birds and mammals, and of course man) there is no sharp change in their development from the zygote to death. The different phases we use to make out (embryo, fetus, neonate, child, teenage, adult and old) are arbitrary, without any discontinuities. Not even the birth is anatomically discontinuous (it consists in cutting a blood vessel; physiologically it has other effects). There is no doubt that in all those phases, from the first to the last, the same individual is involved.

·        In every placental mammal (including man), the first phase of the life of the new individual takes place inside the body of the mother. Pregnancy is equivalent and replaces development inside the egg, which in reptiles and birds takes place outside the mother’s body. In both cases, maternity begins in fertilization, not in birth, whose equivalent is the rupture of the egg shell. A woman is a mother from the moment she becomes pregnant.

The God Particle

Peter Higgs

With the discovery of Higgs boson, two years ago, the media and a few scientists have presented the discovery as the final completion of the standard theory of particle physics, in such a way that we now know everything and do not need God. Hence the nickname given to Higgs boson, the God particle, a name, by the way, that Higgs does not like.

The discovery of a particle whose existence was predicted nearly a half century ago is a spectacular success of the standard theory, comparable to the success achieved in 1846 by Newton’s theory of universal gravitation with the discovery of Neptune, whose existence had been predicted by Le Verrier and Adams. Then it was also said that we now know everything. 

Urbain Le Verrier

True, there was still a loose end, a very small discrepancy of just 43 seconds of arc per century in the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Le Verrier tried to repeat his success and predicted that this discrepancy was due to an unknown planet between Mercury and the Sun. He even gave it a name: Vulcan. For 60 years, many astronomers tried to find the mysterious planet in vain, for the problem in this case was in Newton’s theory, which eventually came to be just a first approximation of a new better theory that explained the discrepancy: Einstein's general relativity.

Could something similar happen to the standard theory of particle physics? Will its great success be followed by its first failure? Are there any loose ends still remaining in the theory?

The answer to the last question must be affirmative. The standard theory of particle physics has the following outstanding issues:

The Grand Design

In 2010, the media gave a lot of coverage to a book on popular science by Stephen Hawking and L.Mlodinow, The Grand Design. I think it is time to make a few comments, which I am going to introduce by means of quotations of the book:

·         Philosophy is dead… Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

These words appear at the beginning of the first chapter. Although most of the book is just popular science, or history of science, it is ironical that the only original contribution (model-dependent realism) is purely philosophical.

·         Objective reality is unknowable, therefore we cannot assume it exists... Only the results of observations and the model we build to explain them exist... Every model is valid (real) in its own field of application... Two models with the same explaining power are equally valid... Ptolemy's model is as valid as Copernicus's... Their only difference is the fact that the second is simpler than the first.

The preceding text is not a literal quotation, but a summarized paraphrase of chapter 3, which describes model-dependent realism, the original contribution of the book (with Berkeley's permission). The authors forget that Copernicanism predicted correctly the stellar parallax, which cannot be explained in Ptolemy's. In the same chapter, Hawking and Mlodinow discard the steady state cosmological theory because it is unable to explain certain observations on the universe. Shouldn't they do the same with Ptolemy's?