ISAIAH and EVOLUTION

ISAIAH

The Lord, via the author of Isaiah 55:7-9, advised the scoundrel to forsake his ways, and the wicked man his thoughts. “Let him turn to the Lord for mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving.  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.”

“As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts, says the Lord.”

Isaiah, in other chapters, also contains some of the best texts anticipating events surrounding the coming of the Messiah about seven centuries before the birth of Jesus.

Where does the above fit in with God’s method(s) of creation?

Just as Jesus tells us how people can look as the sky and predict the weather, he could tell us today to look at the evidence of the living organisms and their fossils and see the glorious power of God exhibited in all creation.  We might have to listen to Isaiah and accept the limitations of our thoughts where the evidence of nature is excluded.

Why didn’t Isaiah tell us about evolution?

Why should he?  If he did it was most likely abandoned- as unintelligible with all that stuff about subatomic particles, genes, and fossils- for having no relevance or value to things then known.  It is amazing, that ideas and information preceding computers and printing presses by 4000 years, got passed along as well as they did.

Is there anything that rationally connects God, science, and evolution?

Yes, a proper understanding of causality.

Joe Engemann      Kalamazoo, Michigan    September 24, 2017

CAN SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GOD?

CAN SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IN GOD?

“Can Scientists or Informed, Intelligent People Believe in God?”

[That was a title of a colloquium organized by Dr. Richard Malott for the Psychology Department in its 1993 version for his Behavior Analysis Classes at Western Michigan University.  In 1992, the title was “Can Scientists and Other Smart Guys Believe in God?”  It was an annual event for a few years with two Psychology Faculty presenting a more skeptical view and a Religion Professor and a Biologist (me) presenting different perspectives.  The main text of a handout I provided was as follows.]

Rather than be defensive about it, I note that from my perspective it is more reasonable to pose the question – “Can Scientists or Informed, Intelligent People Not Believe in God?”

I take the affirmative and state that I believe in God.  If that is accepted at face value, then proof that I am a scientist or intelligent goes a long way toward supporting the affirmative position.

Intellectuals and/or scientists before me have believed in God.  Aristotle is credited with being the founder of numerous sciences and is an authority in natural theology providing a number of proofs of the existence of God.  Let’s consider some of Aristotle’s proofs.

Proof from causality is that we note from inductive reasoning that everything has a cause, but it stretches the imagination or credulity to think that there could be an infinite number of causes leading to the present event, therefore there must be a First Cause, uncaused, otherwise known as God.

A variant of the proof from causality is the proof from motion.  If there were an infinite series of motions leading to present observed motion the movement would not yet have occurred.  Therefore, there must have been a first mover or Prime Mover, another name for God.

The order in the universe begs a source of that order; we do not have true chaos but order and direction due to its creator, God.

Some observers look at diverse human populations and cultures and see that these all exhibit similar moral themes and behavior that leads them to believe in a source, God.

Are Aristotle’s 2300 year old proofs still valid?  I think so.  Does the new knowledge science gives us have anything to contribute?  Time has not diminished Aristotle’s arguments because they are based on reason and abstractions from the real world that have not changed.  But I think there are some modern proofs for the existence of God that science has made possible.  Most modern proofs have their roots in the ancient proofs from causality, but consider the following.

The Big Bang theory of origin of the universe, if correct, implies a start that seems to require a creator.

The second law of thermodynamics means there must have been a starting point or an infinity of time would have us now at an ultimate state of entropy.

Forces acting across vacuums as do gravity and various electro-magnetic forces defy reason for existence in an uncaused system.  This caused me to hypothesize a new mechanism for gravity: an infinity of cosmic particles (perhaps photons) randomly streaking or bouncing around the universe and forcing things apart but forcing them together as does gravity when proximity to another body shades the adjacent sides.

My own consciousness and understanding of biology leads be to a belief in God.  How I function mentally is reducible to a physical mechanism that could be simulated by a computer.  But I have a self-awareness that transcends the physical process.  The human activity could be simulated by a computer; but would it be aware of its activity, I think not even though it could be programmed to tell you otherwise.

I don’t see that any of the “proofs” compel belief in God because I see other intelligent people that understand the arguments but do not believe.  I also believe that belief in God is a gift from God, but a gift that will be given to one seeking that belief.  Part of my belief structure includes a belief in an eternal life that can be much more joyous than the present life and may be dependent upon belief in that life.  I think that is why God does not intrude his presence upon us in a way that would compel our belief and deprive us of our free will.  As a corollary of this I believe he lets natural laws operate most of the time and the temporary misery and suffering that results is minor in the overall scheme of things.

My personal belief has been strengthened by experiencing or knowing of numerous instances of what I think are divine intervention, both personal and public miracles.  Reasonable alternate explanations could be given for many of these, but I think not for all.

As a scientist, my belief in God and thus causality strengthens my performance as a scientist.  It gives me confidence that there are reasons for all things and causes that can be found.  When you are convinced there are answers it I easier to continue the search.

I remember returning to Wood Hall [then home to Biology, Psychology, and some other departments at WMU] after an intense religious renewal weekend [in 1964] and entering it with a sense of awe or reverence for Wood Hall and other buildings and thinking that they somewhat represented temples where both believers and non-believers join in a goal of discovering and teaching about the various aspects or truths of God’s Creation.

A scientist cannot as a scientist deny the existence of God without a suspicion that his/her sample size is too small for such a negative conclusion.  A scientist can possibly be agnostic as a scientist by not having motivation to either examine possible reasons to believe or seek belief.  Scientists can really be happy scientists when they believe in God and know that the truth of whatever their research reveals will not hurt God but only bring them closer to understanding the Creator through God’s Creation.
__________________

Just as bad science does not invalidate good science, abuses in the name of God do not invalidate God.

All major theistic groups believe in some form of the “Golden Rule”, i.e., treat others as you would like them to treat you.

That has not prevented some adherents from becoming extremists that think their beliefs justify atrocities to support their objectives that show little resemblance to the “Golden Rule”.  Although I think one should respect the teaching authority of their religion, I also think an individual should not abandon their own conscience in evaluating the pronouncements of religious leaders.  Divine inspiration claimed by others should not be accepted at face value without serious tests of its truth.

The above was not presented in my biology classes because it did not seem to be appropriate content.  The context of both views being represented in an event outside of a classroom did seem to make it appropriate.

Joseph Engemann, Emeritus Professor of Biology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan.    April 13, 2017

ALTERNATIVE FACTS IN EVOLUTION, POLITICS, RELIGION, AND SCIENCE

Alternative facts seems like either oxymorons or sources of cognitive dissonance.  At best they may be due to failure to have agreed upon definition of terms, at worst they may be deliberate deceptions.  In between those extremes are areas of foggy thinking or reliance on gurus of varying degrees of competence.

To my embarrassment I re-read my February 2015 post on "Evolution: the body cavity".  I did so to see if was really so good that more people have recently been viewing it more than all 160 of my other posts put together.  I noted the first sentence of the third paragraph had an "alternative fact".

Evolution- my embarrassing alternative fact

Pseudocoelomates were placed in an evolutionary sequence between acoelomates and coelomates.
There is no factual basis for that statement.  In fact, it is more likely the pseudocoelomates are a separate line from the turbellarian flatworms just as the coelomates are a separate line from the turbellarian flatworms.  There may have been other origins of pseudocoelomates besides the aschelminths (gastrotrichs, rotifers, kinorhynchs, and nematodes) that evolved from the turbellarians via the gnathostomulids.

Politics- alternative facts

The headlines responsible for the the popularity of alternative facts may be due to unwarranted reliance on the pronouncements of an adulated guru.  Neither conservatism nor liberalism is always right or always wrong in their particular definitions of how the constitutional God-given rights of people should be interpreted..  The "Bill of Rights" should help us realize that and see the value of an interaction of the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches of government in reaching prudent solutions.

Religion- alternative facts

Literal based interpretations versus a message carried in varied literary forms, as ways of getting God's message in scripture have long plagued Christians.  I suspect similar problems have led to the divisions seen among Jews and Muslims.

Roman Catholics are currently undergoing divisive problems with a few cardinals trying to "correct" the Pope with what seems to be a reaction to his trying to replace privilege with more Christ-like behavior in the hierarchy.

Science- alternative facts

We have come a long way from when we believed everything in the world was composed of four elements such as fire and water.  Evolution, following the acceptance of natural selection's importance, has seen anatomical studies, the fossil record, embryology, and molecular genetic principles being successively accepted principles guiding natural selection and the placement of species in correct genealogical order.  Unfortunately, reliance on the most recent fad has brought unrecognized chaos to parts of the view of the tree of life.  My earlier posts on pogonophora, the deep-sea, isopods, and longevity might help you update yourself on what the current science literature is missing.

Acknowledgements

I appreciate the many individuals students, faculty, family and friends that contributed to my thinking and development. Western Michigan University, Michigan State University, The University of Tasmania, The United States Fulbright Commission for International Education, and Aquinas College all had significant input into the process of my development of new ideas in my blogs; however, I take full credit for any errors that may be involved.

Joseph G. Engemann    Emeritus Professor of Biology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan     February 2, 2017

RESOLVING SCIENCE AND RELIGION DIFFERENCES

ASK THE BEASTS

Elizabeth Johnson's book, Ask the Beasts was mentioned at the end of the previous post.  On pages 7 to 9 she discusses science (evolutionary theory) and religion (theology) interactions.  She notes four ways of interacting described by Ian Barbour in his 1990 Gifford Lectures.

The first type of interaction was conflict.  As evidenced by fundamentalists insisting literal interpretation of Genesis proves evolutionary theory is simply wrong, and atheists countering with the argument of science that evolutionary theory is backed by the creation of life and its variations by the chance processes of evolution and natural selection which proves God does not exist.  Neither side admits to the flaws in their arguments so the creation/evolution/debate keeps resurfacing.

The second type of interaction, independence, is more a lack of interaction due to lack of overlap in their areas of operation.  This may be a practical solution and not a admission or right or wrong in the position of those outside their main area of interest.

The third type, dialogue, attempts to resolve the differences in positions by gaining new insights into religious teachings and their meanings.

The fourth type, integration, carries dialogue a little farther and might achieve recognition of God as the source of the laws governing the physical world,

Johnson proposes practical cooperation as "a fifth model of interaction that I would add to Barbour's chart, . . . . . .for the preservation of the natural world."  There certainly are both religious and scientific grounds for cooperating on common ethical standards for preserving the natural world.

ASK YOURSELF

Conflict is inevitable when you take a strong stand in the creation/evolution debate that frequently arises when advocates of special creation contend with mainstream science over the teaching of evolution as the origin of species (especially humans), by means of natural selection, in science classes of public schools.

The flawed arguments of those most vocal adherents of special creation are very convincing to those whose training in science is is limited.  Many may become internally conflicted or experience cognitive dissonance trying to resolve the question.  Both arguments seem persuasive.  So who is right.

SO WHAT IS IT?

When I taught about evolution I tried to present the scientific facts about the operation of evolution and the evidence that exists.  Mindful of the distress experienced by those indoctrinated in literal interpretation of Genesis, I pointed out that an all-powerful, infinite creator, could create the fossils and species of living organisms in seven days or any desired timescale,  I did not think that belief was necessary,  I don't remember if I told them I believed God created the world and all the natural processes science has discovered.  I probably told them that others believe it started with the "Big Bang."  It would seem that scientists would recognize God as the cause for that moment of creation.

I don't think anyone has had a valid revelation about all the details of how God created and sustains the world.  The operation of natural laws created by God are sufficient to explain the evolution of the world by means of natural selection.  But natural selection has random events that make the history of the species on the earth very complicated.  Sometimes we see selection leading to gigantism, sometimes to great size reduction.  Side branches of the tree of life lead to many groups showing great diversity, often radiating into scavengers, herbivores, predators, and parasites.  Certainly, God is the creator of all those things, whether by one astounding act of creation, or with continual input into the process.  My saying so does not make it so, although I would opt for the one astounding act of creation.  I know God sometimes accepts special requests and clearly did numerous miraculous things from the time of Abraham to the present, with the special highlight of events over thirty some years beginning about 2016 years ago.

Many have made their choice, so conflict will continue for them.

Joseph G. Engemann     Kalamazoo, Michigan    November 28, 2016

DARWIN'S GIFT TO SCIENCE AND RELIGION

THE BOOK BY FRANCISCO J. AYALA

DARWIN'S GIFT to Science and Religion was published in 2007 by John Henry Press in Washington, D.C.  The 237 pages are easy reading.  The shock to me was its content did a remarkable job of covering some of the main points I made in my unpublished Evolution Insights a few years later.

The Scientific Method

I particularly liked his comment on page 186 about the scientific method, saying.

 "The most interesting and fruitful scientific hypotheses are not simple generalizations.  Instead scientific hypotheses are creations of the mind, imaginative suggestions as to what might be true."

His accompanying discussion is well worth reading if you want to be a scientist.

The Molecular Clock

He does a good job of discussing the conventional view without indicating his expertise and publications which place him among the national leaders.  On page 135 at the end of the four pages on the topic, he says.

"As the length of time increases, periods of rapid and slow evolution in any lineage are likely to cancel one another out."

The faulty opinion of canceling out was included over half a century ago in the first major publication of the science of molecular clocks by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1965).  The opinion has plagued attempts to use molecular clocks in determining the higher level evolutionary relationships of organisms ever since.  My post on May 31, 2013 was part of my attempt to alert professional biologists to the problem.  Other posts on the deep sea and pogonophorans are important aides to understanding a solution to the problem.

About Ayala

His experience in biology and early exposure to more philosophical subjects  make him well suited to write the book he did.  His youthful picture on the dust-jacket of his book must have been taken in mid-life between his birth in 1934 and his book's 2007 publication.  He is a credit to both science and religion.  I am about six years older than he is and have far less to show for it professionally.

On page 3 in his introduction he says-

"Evolution, I learned in my theology classes, had provided theologians with the "missing link" in the explanation of evil in the world . . . . .".  Maybe you will find his explanation more intelligible on the topic than my post of March 22, 2016.

I was unaware of his book before today (April 25, 2016) but the above was the outcome from a two-hour visit to the library, with perhaps less than an hour spent on the book.  His book is of special interest if you are interested in the unnecessary conflict between science and religion. 

Joseph G. Engemann    Kalamazoo, Michigan    April 25, 2016

CREATORGATE I: EVIL

Science cannot cope with evil, spiritual concepts, and infinite love.  All three lack measurable physical existence subject to examination and quantification by using the tools of science.  Miracles are not repeatable on demand. Consequently, a scientist acting as a scientist can neither affirm nor deny a miracle.  Thus their discomfort allowing any role for the Creator as demonstrated in the previous post about CreatorGate.

SCIENCE AND EVIL

Moral evil is a value judgement and scientists as humans can make such judgments.  But offering a scientific opinion about evil is valueless.  Atheistic scientists and religious scientists have a right to talk about evil based on their philosophical and/or theological point of view; but each should recognize those views are not part of science.

The magnitude of the human loss of life from earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, other natural disasters can be quantified by scientists.  Those factors had a role in our evolutionary history as did many biological factors such as injury and death from starvation, disease, predators, and warfare.  Such events are unwanted, but apart from warfare and other adverse human interactions, do not involve the intent that most would find in things that are evil.  The natural selection of evolution resulting in survival of the fittest was part of every species evolutionary history.

The phenomena of the early origin of the universe, with its explosion, nuclear, and gravitational mayhem, was essential for the origin of elements, galaxies, stars, and planets; the violence challenges our imaginations.  Development of the life-spawning conditions of our own planet Earth involved volcanic eruptions, crustal movements, earthquakes, mountain-building, erosion, and flooding also almost beyond imagination.

In adapting to our ever-changing environment species used various evolutionary solutions.  Some got bigger, some got smaller.  Some got faster, some hid.  The diversity of the flora and fauna of the world is mind-boggling.  With millions of years involved, many amazing adaptations have evolved.

Those adaptations involved the demise of many lacking the adaptation.  If the demise was us, we would think it was evil.  But if we don't view as a personal happening we should be thankful that many generations were gradually shaped into the species we see when we look in the mirror.

SCIENCE AND THE SPIRITUAL AND INFINITE LOVE

Maybe I will be able to shed some light on these topics in the next two posts.  The spiritual and infinite love are not part of science but maybe you can see some connection of value to you.

Joseph G. Engemann    Kalamazoo, Michigan     March 22, 2016

CREATION/EVOLUTION DEBATES

150 YEARS OF THE DEBATE

There seems to be a lull in Creation/Evolution debates now that court cases about how it should be taught or not taught in schools are not in the news each day.  The attempt to make such debates a God versus Science contest should be abandoned.

A CASE OF AQUIRED COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

The debates represent an unrecognized case of cognitive dissonance that was acquired shortly after Darwin presented his evolution ideas in the The Origin of Species as was noted in my 12th post "Darwin and God "[ http://evolutioninsights.blogspot.com/2013/06/darwin-and-god.html ].

I never connected the debates to cognitive dissonance until today (July 10, 2015) even though I had blogged about it [ http://evolutioninsights.blogspot.com/2013/05/creativity-and-cognitive-dissonance.html ] and had talked about the pertinent opposing concepts on the first page of my manuscript's preface that can be read in my post [http://evolutioninsights.blogspot.com/2014/03/evolution-insights-preface.html ].

The clash of ideas did not start with Darwin, he was originally viewing evolution as the work of the Creator.  But the vocal views of colleagues that science proved evolution and disproved any possibility of a spiritual component in the process was soon countered by vehement objections that it couldn't be true since evolution contradicted some of the literal interpretations of the creation stories in the biblical book of Genesis.

Vocal scientists and religious leaders kept the controversy going by overstating their cases in a way excluding the possibility of both having truths that are not mutually exclusive.  So when each side convinces you of the truth of their position it becomes a case of acquired cognitive dissonance.

MERGING THE VIEWS eliminates the dissonance if you can grasp the truth of each position.

Many of my posts are intended to help people along the way to such peaceful coexistence of science and spirituality.

Joseph G. Engemann    Kalamazoo, Michigan    July 10, 2015

EVOLUTION, SCIENCE AND EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE

Evolution, Science, and Extraterrestrial Life

EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE

The search for extraterrestrial life was featured in a NOVA, or some other, television program I happened across yesterday.  Over the years I have come to the conclusion that there are people on countless other planets in the universe, but that documenting or proving it is impossible.  Still, it is worth considering the arguments and evidence that might convince us of the existence of someone with a potential to communicate with us from some far galaxy.

SCIENCE

The most hopeful search described on television was an attempt to detect radio-wave transmissions from outer space via a reception on a radio-telescope array.  Radio-waves are presumably subject to no, or less, distortion as they travel through space and matter intervening in space.  The opportunity for success is infinitesimal, or so close to zero, that I doubt it is worth the effort for the following reasons.

1.  Pinpointing a source would be more difficult than spotting an ant on earth from a telescope on the moon.

2.  A potential source would likely be of short duration relative to the long time the signal would take to reach the earth.  Possible reception from pointing the radio-telescope at the right planet or star might also precede or follow the time a signal is generated.

3.  The algorithms and signals that brilliant minds are expected to develop and send my never be sent because they are even more intelligent and understand its impossibilities or lack of potential use for communication requiring many years between sending and receiving.

4.  The formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and the elements likely to produce a potential life inhabited planet happened many millions of time during the development of the universe.  But those millions are too isolated by time and space for even a slight chance of discovery.

EVOLUTION

Of the many billions of planets produced, millions have likely gone through an evolution of carbon-based life that could well have produced conditions needed for the evolution of life during some period in the past ten billion years.  It would have required several things.

1. The right blend of chemistry, temperature, radiation, gravity, and relative stability of conditions.

2. Sufficient time with those conditions.

The natural selection outcomes would result in evolution likely including some outcomes with

1. Biochemical features much as organisms on earth have.

2. A lot of systems similarity to earthly organisms.

3. Similar ecological roles for different groups of organisms.

4. Social structure, and greatest technological advance with an organism about the size of humans, probably bipedal; but perhaps with different numbers of digits and vertebrae.  They would probably dream about being able to fly like the little fliers and the big fliers of their worlds.

A big question, would the dominant organisms have pigment variations like us or would they all be green?

CREATIVITY

Silicon based versus carbon based life systems seem an interesting possibility in science fiction.

Some find the interacting whole of the biosphere is some type of organism; there are interesting parallels between biosphere and organism that are better explained by ecological principles.

GOD

God is probably amused by those people on planets to whom he* was willing to reveal himself* for their belief that they are the only ones of importance to him*.

* I don't think God has a struggle with our inability to come up with an agreed upon, non-gender based way of describing I AM. I AM, the creator of the universe and all that is in it as well as the underlying or embedded principles leading to the world and its ways.

Conclusion: extraterrestrial life probably exits in the present, probably existed in the past, and will probably exist in new places in the future.  We are unlikely to ever know for certain from physical evidence in our present state.


Joseph G. Engemann    Kalamazoo, Michigan    October 4, 2014

HELLO WORLD

Why "Hello World"

I just checked my blog settings and found I have been blogging about a year to myself.  Some brave souls managed to find it, especially in the last few months after a daughter started to comment on a few posts to friends on Facebook or Twitter.

The settings were so private that it was not listed on blogger and search engines could not see it.

What have you missed?

If your interest is evolution

- the post of May 31, 2013 has the basics of a major boo-boo made a few years earlier and perpetuated in errors supposedly showing the evolutionary relationships of animal phyla.

- read the blogs about annelids, the pogonophora, and why the annelid theory of chordate origin should be reinstated.  Perhaps start with post number four, 05/19/2013, on how cognitive dissonance entered in to my finding out why that is so.

- an efficient line of early evolution leading from protozoans to flatworms can be found in last July's posts.

If you are interested in the creation/evolution debate [in addition to the post of 07/10/15 just added]

- posts of 06/12/2013 and perhaps 03/12/2014 might be helpful.

- other posts may also help you see I think the debate is meaningless; God created the living world by a process we recognize as evolution.

Quirky and not so quirky views about God, Evolution, Creativity, Science, and other items are scattered through the posts.  They still do not have graphic illustrations.  Perhaps that deficiency will be taken care of sooner rather than later.

Joseph G. Engemann    May 12, 2014

GOD

God: Science and the Media

THE MEDIA

Was Jesus Married?

Yesterday, a major network newscaster provided one of those provocative snippets of “news” with a (snide? whimsical? embarrassed?) grin without much further comment.  It had to do with a fragment of ancient text from biblical times which associated Jesus with a term for wife.  The brief associated comments made in the newscast lead one to think it implied Jesus was or might have been married.

No!

There is little reason to think Jesus was married in the sense of having a wife or being a spouse.  But it would not make much difference if he had been anymore than the fact that at least some of the original apostles were married.  But (1) such a major fact would have been very likely to be passed on down through tradition if it were true.  And (2) the terms used for spouse and marriage are and have long been used for the association of Jesus with his church.  Even today Roman Catholic nuns typically wear a wedding ring at, and perhaps after, receiving their final vows in which they are considered “married to Christ” in a spiritual sense. So (3), the fragmentary new evidence has no compelling basis for the suggestion passed on in a newscast.

Science

Science and its methods have much to reveal about God’s creation, but little if anything to reveal about God.  Because the world and all that is in it are a product of God’s creative genius and grandeur, scientists are more likely to find the truths science is capable of finding by proper respect and love for the creator of the world and all that is in it.  What we see as chance and evil are likely misunderstood products of other natural aspects of creation such as evolution and free will that can be found to be positive aspects in some way conforming to God’s plan or direction beyond our present understanding.

The positive aspect of regressive evolutionary events

One hint of this is the profound effect of extinctions and regressive aspects of evolution that were part of the path leading to human beings.  The loss of many annelid features leading to the pogonophoran intermediates giving rise to the most successful animal phylum has been described in several previous posts (the first on 05/031/2013 shows the evidence of error in current theories), concepts that are not yet clearly understood by my peers.  Evidence was partially shown by annelid theory of chordate origin which was not was not properly reinstated in scientific credibility when the evidence used to reject it was shown to be invalid. (See also the last five posts of June 2013)

God

God works in mysterious ways beyond our present comprehension.  So are God’s attributes beyond our comprehension.  Why and how this imperfect and error prone individual could lead a life that discovers the aspect of evolution noted in the previous paragraph could only be possible with God’s grace. That is quite amazing, but even more so, are the accomplishments of the also ordinary lives of many others I know.

Joseph G. Engemann     April 12, 2014

SCIENCE PRINCIPLES

Science Rules

The rules of science have never been voted on by science in general to my knowledge.  But any systematic investigation of nature and knowledge might be recognized as science if several principles are observed.

Definition of terms is a good starting point.  When terms are agreed upon study of the properties of the subject of investigation can benefit by the accurate sharing of knowledge.  It allows knowledge of the subject to accumulate when it is recorded and dispersed among participants.

Review of the literature is essential to avoid needless duplication of effort beyond the duplication needed to assure the information is correct.  The geometric growth of information has brought the need to get the latest and the best.   The latest is not always the best.  Reading science journals and attending scientific meetings often provokes one into thinking of a further aspect needing research.

Objectivity is needed by scientists.  For a long time, scientific writing was phrased in stilted expressions to avoid the use of the pronoun, “I”.   The hope was that the investigator would be less likely to have a personal agenda that would skew the results.  Truthfulness and honesty are expected of all scientists, regardless of their style of writing.

Methods and materials should be chosen as appropriate for the field of study.  The review of the literature is relied upon to help guide choices.  The materials and methods of laboratory and field researchers may be quite different, especially in biology.

Observations and data accumulated by scientific investigators are the basic materials of science.

Hypotheses are tentative explanations or principles for the results of a study.  They can be promoted to theories or laws if they accurately predict results of additional observations.  A hypothesis should be viewed in competition with all reasonable alternative hypotheses.

Experimentation in its simplest form is manipulation of one treatment variable in a set of observations in the experimental group while a control group has no change or a standard treatment.  Ideally, assignment of members to the two groups should be done randomly.  Statistical analysis of the performance of the two groups can sometimes detect even small differences in results between the two groups.

Results are presented with text, tabular, and/or graphic explanations as appropriate.

Analysis or discussion of data and other aspects may be essential parts of research reports.  Flaws in logic and overlooked implications of results should be avoided if caustic complaint letters to the editor are not desired.

Publication and sharing of results of a scientific study is expected by peers in the discipline.  Typically, results are presented to peers in meetings or some other way of sharing before publication occurs.

Peer review is used to filter information published in leading science publications.  It is done insure accuracy and validity of work submitted for publication.  When peer review is working effectively science benefits.  Some failures of peer review can curtail scientific progress when manuscripts submitted from competing schools of thought are not well evaluated.

Predictability is an implied property of science.  The prime prediction, if is is science it should be repeatable. Other outcomes may be suggested by the results of research.  

For example, my analysis of data of others led me to the probable prediction that life in the abyss of the ocean is extended far beyond other's expectations.  I used the assumption as follows: an excellent study was done of deep-sea brittle stars by Dr. Frank Rokup. His sampling was done quarterly over a year and analyzed as was reasonable for annual changes.  I combined his published data in to one sample, thinking the slow pace of life in the abyss made them equivalent to an instantaneous sample.  The result gave a size distribution similar to some long-lived invertebrates in coastal waters where predation was low.  This seemed to me to confirm my view of extreme age for some abyssal animals.  The graphic results were presented in the last chapter of Invertebrate Zoology, 3rd ed. (Engemann and Hegner, 1981).

Some problems afflict the scientific enterprise. 

To some scientists, data reigns supreme.  Analysis of data sometimes misses consideration of a reasonable alternative hypothesis.  Methods may not be appropriate.  Precision of technological aspects can exceed application of reason.

Reason got a bad name in science when “armchair” scientists reached their conclusions by just thinking about something when data to answer the question was easily obtained.  Publication outlets and granting agencies often have policies where editorial policy and/or peer review eliminates consideration of research if it does not involve collecting original data.

Meta-analysis and review articles typically do not contain new data.  They are generally done be recognized experts in the field.  Meta-analysis may generate new data from existing data, typically from numerous similar original studies.  That is about as close as mainstream science gets to armchair science. 

The, publish and get a grant or perish, competition in academia has to some extent spurred efforts by scientists.  But the result is often multiplication of publications with small gains and great overlap.  Graduate students can be so important as co-authors to a faculty member’s success that research specialization may interfere with breadth of training.  Production of graduate students may bring rewards to faculty so much that the screening and training of candidates may suffer.  Grade inflation occurred as pleas of those needing educational deferments during wars following World War II seemed to be silently endorsed by faculty.  The overall result of such responses may raise questions about the product of academe.

I intend to have numerous blogs about studies I found flawed.  But that is the way science works.  We get answers that are accepted until a better answer comes along.  Sharing them is a way of seeing how things might be improved.  Even a Nobel Prize winner will make my list of forthcoming blogs.  Is someone out there ready to blog about errors of my views?

Joseph G. Engemann     May 24, 2013  

 Note below added June 7, 2013

I just posted a blog on peer review.  While looking through some old reprints on the peer review process I ran across a review that raised the question, is biology science?  Some of the key qualities of science is that it is repeatable and potentially refutable.  Being repeatable means description of materials and methods is essential if verification is desired.  Laboratory scientists think the controlled experiment is the ultimate in science.  Where does that leave the field biologists whose work is largely descriptive?  One of the reprints raised the question that it might be more philosophy than science.

I don’t subscribe to that view.  The methods of the field biologists do not often have easily described controls.  Their controls may be the norms of other field observations.  Details of the environment can be reduced to controlled experiments, but it then raises the question of what the responses would be in the variables of the natural environment.  When field and lab research overlaps, it is difficult for each side to fully appreciate the contributions of the other side.

JGE

SCIENCE PEER REVIEWS

The Peer Review Problem and a Proposed Solution

Peer review

The peer review process is not as flawed as many think.  It is needed to keep professional journals and granting agencies functioning at a high level.  When working as intended, it is a benefit to scientists, saving time from having to sort through useless material that should never have been published, and making research money go to those most likely to do productive research.

The feared failures such as reviews that are uninformed, biased, eliminating work from competitors or other lapses are minimal according to some research on the topic done years ago.  Peer reviewers may be overworked and usually unpaid volunteers.  They usually are active publishers in the field they review.  But complaints arise.

I have thought about the problem.  The following overlong suggestion for a solution was formulated about seven years ago.  It was after about ten years of retirement, keeping up my interest in biological sciences, and it occurred to me that I could have been part of the solution.  It is too late for me now, but it might provoke someone to do something about it.

Joe Engemann      June 7, 2013

December 14, 2005

I just finished lunch as I looked a bit at the AARP Bulletin.  A brief train of thought brought me to a solution to the editorial and peer review problem facing top journals.  The solution seemed to be an equivalent organization to the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval or Consumers Union/Consumers Reports.  Perhaps NSF would fund startup or AARP could help advance such a project.

The problem

Editors of scientific journals do not have the time and/or the competence to properly consider and evaluate all submissions.  Reviewers face similar problems.  Peer reviewers are seldom true peers of workers in all aspects of a discipline.  Errors that creep in to a discipline are unlikely to be seen by either those that let the error in or by those they taught. 

The goal

Establish a core of retired volunteer reviewers in various specialties to establish an independent journal review program.  Panels of three or more should produce evaluations of Science, Nature, and the top (one to three) specialty journals in each major subdiscipline.  The evaluations would reflect standards of the area, with some input from outsiders to the discipline.  A sampling process could be used unless sufficient reviewers or panels are available to evaluate all papers and editorial content. 

The review program could be a clearing house for individuals to submit complaints and/or for journals to refer complaints regarding their perception of failings of particular published materials.  Emphasis on the complaint generated review process could reduce unnecessary reviews of journals that have an effective high quality program or output.  A method of evaluating complaints would be desirable, particularly if excess numbers were generated.  Perhaps a quantitative score could be developed to prioritize review choices to those getting the highest relative score (relative to readership and available reviewers or better criteria).

Choice of reviewers

Retirees that normally read the journal

Over 65 or retired over 5 years

Over ten years since editorial board or other service for a journal or related entity

Degree and/or employment, publication, or other credentials in the discipline

Tenure of reviewers

One year renewable for five years upon unanimous agreement of other panel members

A second five year term could ensue if no replacements are available

Removable by petition of one or more panel members if validated by the majority of each of two of the three most closely related panels

Oversight board

One member elected from each panel to serve on a roster from which a six member board to be selected by lot – three from the panels making up the third having most review activity, two from the next third, and one from the remaining third having least activity

Remaining elected members to serve as alternates (by request of board chair or member needing replacement) and/or replacements (next on alphabetical list of those elected)

Function of board to be administration or administrative oversight and development of rules or by-laws as necessary

Funding

Volunteers could cover their own expenses as a public service

Reviewers should not be paid, except for expenses if available, to maintain independence and avoid conflicts of interest

Foundations might provide support either long term or to get started

The Western Michigan University Evaluation Center might provide advice or funding

Possible funding from the National Science Foundation for secretarial and office expenses in start-up phase

Possible funding from membership fees from journals if mechanism avoiding conflict of interest is possible

Possible funding from newsletter reporting evaluations available by subscription; perhaps libraries might find use in evaluating acquisitions

Independent results might be of use to granting agencies (NSF, NIH, Foundations, etc) to evaluate grants made for factors producing quality publications (grant support of publications could be in database of reviews).  The public might find it a valuable way to evaluate giving to non-profit organizations sponsoring research.

Submission for AARP (bulletin or journal)

Is peer review failing?

Retired members of scientific societies, do you still read your journals?  If you do, your input is desired.  Do you think you could provide independent review of the validity of research published in your specialty?

A disgruntled emeritus biology professor maintains two leading general scientific journals have been publishing research articles based on research violating both valid principles of research and basic research published in specialty journals.  The professor wants AARP to survey members to see if journals they read also show such a failing of peer review.

The professor thinks the independent input of retired scientists could help correct some of the deficiencies of the peer review process based on the following reasoning.  The information explosion along with specialization required to produce research in molecular biology has resulted in most publications being produced by those lacking the broad background prevalent in most researchers of two generations ago.  The peer review process is great to preserve quality, but it also preserves errors that become ingrained in those winning a competitive race to publish.  They are slow, unwilling, or incapable of seeing views in conflict with their own work.  They have learned some of the errors as accepted principles of their discipline.

The best example is the error of calculating relationships of animals in an evolutionary tree of life based on faulty molecular clock studies.  Life cycle duration was a possible variable noted in a major publication starting molecular clock studies.  It was ignored because it was unknown how to deal with it, it had little effect on closely related groups, and the oversight became institutionalized in the field.  The error was further compounded by using single chemical compounds (variability in speed of change in different groups was widely documented), too small a sample size (less than the minimum number shown to be needed), and data selection.

It seemed a horrendous error to replace the results of studies developed through a century of work using comparative anatomical, embryological, and biochemical, as well as paleontological and other studies, on the basis of an oversimplified molecular clock study.

Is the professor a kook?  Or do you agree something needs to be done and/or would be willing to participate in reviewing one or more journals in your field?  Send your response to the AARP, Peer review survey, - - - - - .

6/7/2013   The above was not sent.  But, is anybody out there ready to do something about it?

My Evolution Blog

Evolution, science, creativity, and God are among many ideas I would like to share with you.  They come from sixty or more years thinking about science, evolution, creativity, and God.  Some are new and not yet incorporated in the body of science common to those in my field.  For example, a worm that lives for thousands of years provides evidence of the connection of vertebrates to annelid ancestors.

Some important ideas come from my Fulbright research at the University of Tasmania followed by research at Michigan State University.  Crustaceans with greatly different life-cycles made me very alert to factors influencing longevity.  The Tasmanian ones were in pools on Mount Wellington that Darwin had passed over a century before me when he climbed the mountain as noted in his Voyage of the Beagle.  Then I became aware of the ancient worms when I revised an invertebrate zoology text for the second edition (Hegner and Engemann, 1968).  They had not been included in the first edition when I had used it as a student in about 1947.  Others thought they were an aberrant dead-end from an evolutionary standpoint.  But they help answer many important evolutionary questions.

Seeing why others don't know about it led me to understand some of the problems with peer review, scientific journals,and scientific thinking.  Along the way I wrote an unpublished manuscript on creativity.  I also note the creation/evolution debate does not need to be a conflict.  Those who believe in God should realize the creator can make us through or along with the process of natural selection and evolution.

My computer exposure has gone from punch cards in the 1960's through a succession of upgrades.  It has bogged down in recent years with the advent of programs that do most anything you want - if you know how to use the software.  But I can't even figure out how to get to editing portion of this to put my biography in it. Maybe I will eventually get to it.  When I do you will know it because pictures and illustrations will help to make some of things I want to say understandable.  Seventeen years of retirement after 36 years of teaching invertebrate zoology and related subjects at Western Michigan University helped me compile some of the things I want to present.  I've decided to do it now because my children and grandchildren are busy enough that they are unlikely to do it for me posthumously.

Today, December 23, 2014, over one year and seven months after the above was posted (5/19/13), I was trying to set up a new blog to transfer items on God and Creativity to, as well as to accept new items on those two as well as favorite pictures and comments not related to evolution.  As I went through the areas I had hoped to use to accomplish that I was unable to get Blogger or blogspot.com's attention for that purpose.  But I did find out my name is Evolution Insights instead of Joseph G. Engemann or my preferred Joe Engemann. My initial thought about a week ago was that I really needed to set up four or more blogs to allow readers to access their area of interest with greater ease.  To some extent, it can already be done by clicking on the topics at the top of the blog.

Joe Engemann (my name, missing in the original 5/19/13 post 1)  Kalamazoo. MI   12/23/2014