‘Science deserves to be challenged. After all, it is about questioning dogma and almost ceaseless scepticism. But there are those who want to go further, who believe that science deserves a good kicking too.

James Le Fanu, a medical doctor and columnist for this newspaper, points out how many details of our lives, from thinking to breathing, are quite astonishing. They are extraordinary for not appearing to be extraordinary.

But there are no more miracles today, he sighs. Science has stripped the world of wonder with its relentlessly materialist, reductionist outlook. Everything is ultimately explicable and there’s nothing special any more. Despite the fact that quackery, strange-ologies and new-age mumbo jumbo seem as prevalent today as ever, Le Fanu declares that the triumph of science “is virtually complete”.

Like Le Fanu, I also think there is a basic flaw in the scientific enterprise: research is done by people. And people have prejudices. They make mistakes. They ignore important details. And they only ask questions they know they have a chance of answering. Aside from the last point, this author has much in common with the target of his attack. Le Fanu focuses on disappointment in the wake of high-profile efforts to read the human genetic code and understand the human brain. He quotes the hype written by journalists (I plead guilty) and then dwells on how reality inevitably failed to live up to their breathless expectations. All this is well worth raking over.

But in his discussions of evolution he invests too many words in attacking Darwin’s 150-year-old blockbuster The Origin of Species (“so staggering an intellectual leap on such slender evidential grounds”) and too few on recent research. Noam Chomsky’s views on language and evidence of altruism are portrayed as a challenge to the Darwinian view, yet they have been assimilated in recent work by Martin Nowak at Harvard, among others.

Rag-outs of equations show general readers the “impenetrable obscurity” of the mathematics used to back the theory of evolution, a superficial trick that could be used on pretty much any paper from any scientific field.

Le Fanu uses the phantasmagoric creature Hallucigenia to show how such creatures defy categorisation, not realising that he is using the old reconstruction in which the hapless creature totters around on “stilts”. They were actually protective spines and this half-billion-year-old hallucination is now recognised as a relative of the velvet worm.

He refers to the apparently unattainable “extreme perfection” of the eye, despite the blind spots that blight our own eyes, and the computer simulations that show how eyes can evolve, and quickly too. The remarkable similarity of all life at the level of DNA is seen as the most dramatic confirmation of evolution’s unifying vision of creation, but Le Fanu perversely concludes that the “uncompromising verdict” of the many projects to read the entire DNA (genome) of organisms is that the mutations that set us apart from the rest of the natural world “are nowhere to be found”. He also seems out of touch with developments in understanding how we can be built from as few as 25,000 genes and how supposedly “junk DNA” is nothing of the sort.

He concludes: “One might reasonably suppose that this was a theory on the point of collapse.” Only if you are a creationist who is out of touch with the literature. The gist of a lot of what he says is “I don’t get it”. So what does he get? Neuroscience has inadvertently confirmed the reality of the soul (whatever that is). Cosmology has given us the “single most impressive intellectual achievement of all time” with the Big Bang model (he ignores the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy). He draws comfort from how Sir Isaac Newton’s theory portrays gravity as a mysterious “non-material” force.

Le Fanu holds back from invoking a Creator but calls on scientists to “conceive of forms of understanding different from those in which they have been trained”. But the point is that science is not prescriptive. You can use emergent, holistic, non-materialist approaches too, so long as they successfully drive the agenda of experiment and theory. A few have taken the doctor’s spiritual medicine: the Nobel prizewinner Brian Josephson and Rupert Sheldrake, the biologist who gave us morphic resonance. Alas for Le Fanu, the cold, materialist, rational approach of science is truly wonderful because it works.’

I also read a review by Tim Lott (who is not a scientist) in the ST which was very favourable but I cannot reproduce it here – you can read it on line, though.

I might just have to buy the book and make up my own mind.

Welcome.

The quote is from the above article written by Dr James Le Fanu and is an extract from his recently published book. If this is not clear from my introduction to the piece I apologise.

Le Fanu is a practising GP, so I guess that he is both well-educated and familiar with basic biology. Although I do not know the gentleman personally he does not appear from his writings to be either a liar or an idiot.

Perhaps he is mistaken in this instance or simply using dramatic licence to make a particular point about our general ignorance.

Whoever told you this: “by some magical alchemy of which we know nothing, our bodies transform the food and drink before us into our flesh and blood”, is either a liar or an idiot.

I’d suggest you tell them to pick up a basic biology book or, even better, find a way to gain an education.

I really mean this in the most helpful way.

Thanks for the explanation of complexity.

I am re-reading a book by Sean B. Carroll called, ‘Endless Forms Most Beautiful,’ on evolutionary development (Evo Devo in ellipsis). You will, I am sure, recognise the quote that forms the title. It is pretty tough going in places but what amazes me, if his thesis is correct, is how many big surprises we are uncovering in genetics. I suppose this is inevitable with a relatively new science.

Of course we need to make certain assumptions to provide a little solid ground on which to base our speculations and, until such time as these assumptions are found wanting, that is how we must proceed. But we must continually challenge the assumptions and not regard them as too holy to question. Otherwise we fall into dogmatism, tribalism and ignorance – it is then that we stop learning.

It alarms me to hear Richard Dawkins say on TV, as he has done more than once, that Darwinian evolution has moved beyond theory and is now an established and indisputable fact. This is also beginning to happen with certain climate scientists.

The great discoveries have occurred when orthodoxy has been vigorously challenged. I name a few: Copernicus, Einstein, Faraday, Darwin, Harvey. There are many more and I am sure we each have our favourite list but it makes my point that we should never accept something simply because it is the current received wisdom.

‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’

On your last point – theory is competitive and based on the available evidence. So, for creationists or a flat-earthers to have any credibility they must provide evidence that is more compelling than that provided by other theories, and this they cannot do. It is not sufficient to say that evolution has not proven its case with absolute certitude therefore xxx must be the case. Nothing has been proven to that degree – and maybe it can never be.

I know nothing about homoeopathy but to me the entire world is pretty far-fetched – and that is its wonder.

I did not assume you were a denier and still less a creationist (I do not think that was implied), but I guessed you wanted to know how to respond to these types.

Complexity can often have advantages, but so can simplicity, but I doubt if you would find clear agreement on what complexity is. If there is complexity, then it must have a selective advantage, very often this will be in the direction of niche specialisation but this can easily lead to a dead end.

What is true to say is that the term ‘primitive organism’ is a misnomer, selection has continually acted on all organisms. If an organism has apparently remained unchanged, this will be due to stabilising selection; its form is well suited to its niche and selection is reinforcing its adaptation.

I suppose the evolutionary time-scale has enabled an increase in the possibility of more sophisticated adaptations, but in turn this has provided an opportunity for apparently simple forms. For example warm blooded animals could only evolve after poikilothermic animals and this provided an opportunity for the common cold virus (or its equivalences in other species than our own), which could be seen as simple, but is really pretty sophisticated and certainly successful.

Darwinian evolution is very much the backbone of Biology as much as atomic structure and the periodic table is the backbone of Chemistry. I suppose you could say it is a subject in progress rather than a work in progress.

Inevitably Biological definitions take evolution for granted, giving opponents the opportunity to point out the circularity, but yes that is what the subject is about. Similarly if you told a chemist that all he was saying assumed the existence of elements and atoms all he could say is yes, of course. He could point to all sorts of evidence, but I am sure a dedicated earth, fire air and water believer could dismiss it all as appearances, saying it looks and behaves as though what you claim is true, but you cannot prove that it really is so.

This may seem far-fetched, but it is pretty much the homoeopathy argument.

The last post is actually from Martin and should be read before my response immediately above it.

Firstly we need to clarify what is meant by macro-evolution. I am well aware that confronted with a confirmed creationist or even an avid Darwin denier, I would meet a problem because any instance would be denied as macro-evolution or it would be said, in effect that, it has never happened under laboratory conditions.

I take what you call macro-evolution to be speciation. Species are commonly held to be non-interbreeding groups of organisms such that there is no gene flow between the groups (but this will probably not satisfy a creationist). As doubtless you have read there are several factors that can lead to breeding isolation, with geographical isolation being the most obvious and most contentious (even if the organism does not interbreed, but theoretically could, is it a species? How is it distinguished from a sub-species?).

Over the time span of evolution, measured in millions of years the most notable species differences are the number of chromosomes. How this has happened is less easy to understand, particularly in the animal kingdom, where reproduction is sexual. One individual with a changed number of chromosomes might not be expected to reproduce and often, chromosomal abnormalities are associated with impairment of function of the organism. However this is not necessarily the case and depending how sex cells (gametes) divide at meiosis progeny can result. If chromosomal changes occur it automatically produces a restricted gene pool. Breeding between the new group and the old is likely to produce sterile offspring and other selective disadvantages. Nature has supplied an experiments of her own; a few years ago, chromosomal changes in Madeira mice (fusion of chromosomes reducing the total number); here is a link: http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml . Unfortunately I do not know of the follow up to find out if hybrid progeny were found to be infertile.

A natural ‘experiment’ that has taken place over an evolutionary time span has been the speciation of cachid fish in African lakes: http://www.thecichlidgallery.com/article_speciation.htm ; another documented instance is amongst drosophila fruit flies in Hawaii, where differential sexual selection has produced a large diversity of species. Some time ago I heard about how the House Sparrow, introduced into North America in the mid 19th century now has recognisably different features and courtship song patterns compared to the original European stock, whether this would prevent interbreeding is not clear. However it provides good conditions for a new species: a small number in a founder colony (restricted gene pool) and a novel habitat (different food available and different predators).

The only chance of seeing unambiguous speciation in our lifetime would be from an organism with a very short life cycle, so the answer is to live a lot longer!

The experiments that have been done involve comparisons of DNA, which has been done many times: species are compared, the hypothesis would be the degree of differences in the DNA sequence (particularly in non-coding DNA where mutations are silent) and of course the data confirms expectation. The problem here is that the technique is so successful that the DNA record actually has become the benchmark, so comparison of 2 species DNA would lead to a hypothesis, for example, that only fossils of a common ancestor would be found before a specified time. However, I would not expect this to cut much ice with a dedicated denier.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘complexity’. There is no requirement that organisms should evolve to be more complex. Complexity will only occur if there is a selective advantage. If a species of bacteria evolves to be able to exploit a particular hydrocarbon (say benzene, which is difficult to degrade), does this make the bacterium more or less complex? Arguably its adapted metabolism could be considered highly complex. The other problem with bacteria, incidentally, is that it is not possible to differentiate species in the same way as sexually reproducing organisms.

Thanks for this mine of information – it looks like a lot of hard work.

A quick response before I digest the details. I am neither a Creationist (for which I can find no evidence) nor a Darwin denier but Darwin himself knew that his hypothesis was at the very least incomplete – see Chapter 6, I think, of the Origin of Species.

One thing in my make-up that I will own up to is that I mistrust orthodoxy, which has a vested interest in suppressing and demonising alternative views. So far as I can ascertain Darwinian evolution is very much a work in progress, so I am trying to feel where there is solid ground and what is more speculative.

Your response gives me a very strong pointer as to where the line might be drawn, although I accept that it is more of a continuum than an either/or.

Wherever we are in terms of knowledge, there are some ideas that are more soundly based than others. I believe very strongly that orthodoxy must be continually challenged, however uncomfortable that makes some people feel, for that way progress lies.

What I mean by complexity is that, if I have understood Darwin’s tree of life correctly, there should be a tendency towards complexity as the most successful organisms gain things to improve their competitive advantage, or at least change something. Those that do not will die out and be superseded by bigger, stronger, more sophisticated whatevers. But this does not appear to be the case – complex organisms seem to be very much the exception.

I have read a few books on evolution, although I certainly do not lay claim to any sort of expertise, but a couple of things puzzle me.

I have yet to read any convincing explanation, at least one based on the scientific method of hypothesis – experiment – confirmation – theory – experiment etc. – that proves macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is quite clearly evident and can be confirmed by predictive experiment in the lab but how does one species evolve into another (or one phylum into another for that matter)? Not only how but how has it been proved to be so given that we are living in the experiment?

The other thing, which is related, that I don’t quite follow, although I read a piece recently that attempted to explain it, is why complexity is very much the exception. If Darwin’s tree of life is on the right lines how come the vast bulk of life stayed pretty much the same – at least in terms of complexity? The article that I read in NS attempting to refute the tree of life concept said something to the effect that there is no hierarchy and that organisms are swapping genetic material all the time, presumably striving for competitive advantage, although this was not part of the argument. Apparently 14% of our DNA is intrusive despite our short time on the planet.

Anyway, I would be grateful if you could bend your scientific brain to addressing these two conundrums: macro-evolution and complexity.

Many thanks.

I am not sure what Russell’s argument was in placing philosophy on a higher plane than science except to say that he knew that science could not supply definitive answers any more than could metaphysics or any other branch of philosophy. In one famous passage he stated that he was sure that 2+2=4 in all circumstances and in all possible worlds but he could not prove it. In other words this axiom was no more than a belief or an assumption – I am not sure whether this was pre or post Gödel.

My argument is that natural philosophy (science) was an integral component of a larger discipline – and should be still, in my view.

Of course, nobody can feel what it is like to be somebody or something else. Empathy depends on personal experience. How often do you hear someone saying, ‘I can’t understand why anybody behaves like that?’ We have to make assumptions based on empirical evidence.

Two assumptions that some scientists (I make the distinction between scientists as individuals and science as a method) that lead often to error and tendentious conclusions might be termed ‘Induction’ and ‘Historicism.’ By the former I mean extrapolating a general rule from the particular. The latter is identifying a correlation between two (or more) events from the past to create a general rule or forecast. Climate change predictions, for example, are dependent on historicism.

I am not sure all scientists believe that cracking the mystery of the mind is an impossibility – the Churchlands certainly do not.

I have no idea what le Fanu’s agenda is. Perhaps he is just expressing an opinion based on his experiences as a medical doctor and as an all round interested spectator. This article forms part of his recently published book, which I have not read. Reading that might yield more insight.