Two scientists discovered less than 50 years apart how the universe works - one in the biological aspect and the other in the physical aspect. Both are equally correct, why in the public does one get XNUMX and the other XNUMX?
One scientist has come up with a new way to explain how biology works. A generation later, the second scientist came up with a new way that explains how physics works. Richard Dawkins brings the story.
Today, after a century of experimental testing, both explanations are still valid in science. But in popular culture, the physicist Albert Einstein is exalted, while the legacy of the biologist Charles Darwin is shrouded in a cloud of controversy.
The question arises: why do Darwin's theories on the origin of species, which he founded in 1859, have a different status than Einstein's theories of relativity published in 1905 and 1915-1916?
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York and co-author of the book "Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution" was asked a question in the following interview.
Question: Einstein and Darwin were given a different status in our society. The former is actually a popular cultural icon, while some people almost want to assume the status of the latter. Why do we have two approaches to these people, even though they developed theories that are very similar in terms of the state of the scientific evidence?
Neil deGrasse Tyson: While both were scientists, Einstein was the first scientist who was very public, who was active in social causes as well as political causes. I don't know if this is also true for Darwin. I know he was well known in his day. I know his book "On the Origin of Species" was a bestseller. But I don't know about his political involvement, about his influence on governments. I don't know of cases where rulers of nations approached him and asked him to be their president, as they approached Einstein from the new state of Israel for example.
As a citizen, as a public scientist, I can tell you that Einstein in principle overturned such a strong and institutionalized paradigm of science, while Darwin did not really overturn a scientific paradigm. There was a paradigm there, but it was a gradual process: "Does evolution work as Lamarck says, with heredity as acquired traits? No, it doesn't”… You can see evolution as an idea there, settling into what works, whereas Einstein took Newtonian physics and said it was incomplete, and that was something that was unthinkable for centuries of working with Newtonian physics.
My reading of history is that people wanted to get an opinion on everything from someone who is so well known as a person who is so smart.
Question: Is it similar to the situation of rock stars today, you want to know what a rock star thinks about global hunger, even though he made his money as a musician?
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Exactly. And so Einstein is not necessarily an expert in other fields. Not even necessarily knowledgeable in other fields. But people know he is a deep thinker. And so they asked him what his deepest thoughts were regarding the Jews and the Arabs, and regarding the civil rights movements, and the bomb and Nazi Germany. He thus became a sounding board for the people so that they could get a point of view from someone they trust implicitly, from a wise person.
And so there is the factor that differentiates between Einstein and Darwin. But I think there is a stronger factor. There is no science in this world like physics. Nothing comes close to the precision with which physics allows you to understand the world around you. These are the laws of physics that allow you to say exactly what time the sun will rise. What time will the eclipse begin? What time will the eclipse end? What time will the meteor strike?
Fundamentals of physics basically give you the power to predict the future with great accuracy. Whereas biology doesn't do that. Chemistry doesn't do that. You can predict a reaction, yes. You can understand how things work, yes. Darwin's theory of evolution is a framework through which the multifaceted nature of life on Earth can be understood. But there is no equation that underlies Darwin's "Origin of Species" that can be applied and say, "How will this species look, say, in 100 years or 1000 years?" Biology is not yet there with predictive power.
And so when we talk about the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution, they are each of enormous importance for understanding the world. But the toolbox that comes with the theory of relativity, which comes with every physical theory, has a level of precision that puts it in a different category. This is not just an organizing principle.
For this reason, Darwin's theory of evolution, because it is a biological theory, because biology is a different kind of science than physics, looks to an outsider as if one could just jump in and claim that things are not exactly how the biologist sees them. Of course it's wrong, but I'm just passing it on to you when you have the toolbox of predictive powers. You won't go around and say that somehow the equation is wrong. The equation is clearly correct, so go home.
A note on Neil deGrasse Tyson's words: The laws of biology are just as precise as the laws of physics. The equations do not make the laws of physics more accurate than the laws of biology in terms of predicting the phenomena and processes. Biology is a different type of thinking from physics, the biological rules are categories or other thinking patterns from physics. But it is possible to find the equal valley between the two fields. Another important thing, equations can be physically wrong even if mathematically they are correct. A good example is Einstein's theory of general relativity. Between 1912 and 1914 Einstein first developed a version of the general theory of relativity of field equations that were not general covariance, and the gravitational tensor was not obtained from the Riemann tensor, or from its "contraction", the Ritchie tensor. The field equations at that time were wrong even though mathematically they were written according to the rules of absolute differential geometry. In November 1915 Einstein replaced these field equations with the field equation of general relativity. He discovered that the previous equations were incorrect and he said, "Unfortunately, I perpetuated my final mistakes in the academic articles", and he also said about himself, "This is the habit of this guy Einstein, every year he repeats what he wrote last year".
The next question in the interview: What is the problem with the theory of evolution?
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Because evolution is an organizing principle in biology that allows you to understand phenomena, there are people who oppose it. Now the way I see it is that the level of resistance is not fundamentally different from the resistance that prevailed when Copernicus and Galileo demonstrated that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. At that time we still didn't have Newton's theory of gravity. We could not accurately predict the solar system like a clockwork. And so then it was a new world: "solar system", which means that the sun is at the center of things.
At that time, there were religious people who claimed that these things were contrary to the Holy Scriptures, contrary to God, contrary to his way and his will. At that time of course, the church was very powerful. It was basically the state in Italy. Therefore she had the power to impose her view, and this harmed your health to express opinions that differed from the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
Today I am happy to report that they do not burn people at the stake if they claim that the earth revolves around the sun, or if there are other stars that may have planets, which themselves could harbor life. It is such declarations that led Giordano Bruno to be burned at the stake in 1600, just 10 years before Galileo appeared with his book The Messenger of the Stars, which reported on Jupiter and its moons, making Jupiter the center of the moons rather than the Earth.
So things changed quickly back then, from Bruno being burned at the stake, to Galileo being put under house arrest, to modern times, when the Catholic Church issues proclamations that evolution is okay. And so history has shown that belief systems that are based in a theistic way were able to adapt themselves to the prevailing discoveries in science. And those who couldn't, stayed behind. And if you're left behind, then the powers that be in a rising economy disenfranchise you.
We are in the twenty-first century. The emerging economies are going to be scientifically and technologically driven. We are not farmers anymore.
What were the consequences in the mid-1800s of saying you don't believe in Darwin? There were no such consequences, really. But today, with biotech companies, there is no understanding of biology without the theory of evolution. And so if you say, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution, I think we are all specially created", you must understand the consequences of this for your employability.
Now if you don't want to become a scientist, then maybe it doesn't matter. OK. There are many professions that are not related to science. But as I said, the emerging economies are going to be technologically and scientifically driven, with biotech being front and center. If you come and say there was Adam and Eve, you won't be able to get through the front door. Because they won't be able to use your knowledge to invent the next vaccine, the next drug, the next cure for cancer. This knowledge base does not lead to discoveries that we know. Discoveries await us in the corridors of biotech companies.
A final note on Neil deGrasse Tyson's words: It seems that the reason why in popular culture, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is exalted, while Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is controversial is this: relativity is about gravity, elevator experiments, black holes and all Another thing unrelated to monkeys and humans. The church can live with black holes and can explain that the big bang was created by God. Whereas the theory of evolution deals with monkeys and humans and God forbid it is implied that there is a similarity between them. The one who determined that there is a similarity between them cannot be considered a genius in popular culture, while the one who drives elevators in a gravity field can certainly be the genius of the generation.
For an article on the subject on Richard Dawkins' website
76 תגובות
Of course, the above does not mean that it is impossible to try to develop the understanding of the upper levels on the basis of certain working assumptions regarding the lower levels. This is what we always try to do, but it is, as mentioned, a less than perfect understanding.
In other words - in the scientific pursuit it is permissible to try to start building the cafeteria on the fortieth floor even before the floors below are completed, but it is also permissible to claim, in this situation, that the cafeteria is not yet established.
I say again:
In principle, there are no fundamental differences of opinion between us.
It is important to understand that a computer is a human creation and was built with a separation of levels specifically to enable activities of the type you described.
Nature is not like that and in order to establish a claim of separation of levels you have to prove it and this is almost impossible to do without understanding the levels below.
As I said - sometimes it is almost possible - evolution is an example of this because it is mainly a mathematical sentence whose dependence on the elements to which it applies is minimal but also in it - in order to establish its existence in nature it had to be possible to verify that the conditions of the sentence are met.
The analogy to separating levels in a computer is a good example.
Many good programmers are unaware of the bits and bytes running around inside the computer.
While I am writing these lines and sending a response, countless actions are taking place in the lower levels of the computer and the communication network that I have no need to be aware of. For most of the operations I perform on the computer this separation between what is happening below and what is happening above is almost absolute.
What happens when something goes wrong? So a deeper understanding is really needed.
But still a deeper understanding of phenomena can come precisely from the equally high levels.
The basic concept of entropy of a system was invented when we studied complex systems while deliberately ignoring the particles that make them up. The deep insight comes precisely from the upper level
R.H
Truly 'it is possible to build a system of laws for phenomena even without understanding their connection to what creates them.'
But as Makhal explained - only after thoroughly understanding the system and the laws will it be possible to use the system of laws effectively.
R.H.:
As I said - I also agree with Guy.
The only thing I don't agree with in this matter is the thought that his words are a reference to my words.
I agree with Guy, it is possible to build a system of laws for phenomena even without understanding their connection to what creates them. In the study of population biology it is not usually necessary to understand how a particular enzyme works.
It is possible to program in a high-level language without knowing assembler and in assembler without knowing the exact electronics of the computer.
ravine:
Note that I wrote "to understand" and not "to find out".
There is a difference between things.
The fact is that the laws in the higher layers do derive - even if in a winding way - from the laws in the lower layers.
They knew how to talk about the pressure and temperature of gases before the atoms, particles, the kinetic model of gases and the like were discovered, but only after these were discovered was the subject really understood and only then did the theory on the subject become rigorous.
If we talk about biology, then evolution through natural selection was discovered even before the genome was cracked, but it is clear that both its understanding and the rigor of its formulation increased after this cracking.
After all, I'm not saying that one shouldn't engage in psychology even today - even though it stems from biology that hasn't been cracked yet. I'm just arguing that because of its inherent complexity it won't be fully understood and rigorously expressible before the layers beneath it are understood (therefore, we may never arrive at a rigorous theory of psychology)
From * as:
"In order to understand the laws of biology, one must understand the laws in the previous layers"
I don't think so. I believe that there is a separation between levels of abstraction. Without this separation our ability to study phenomena beyond the level of individual atoms would have been impossible let alone bacteria, animals or stars.
To analyze the movement of celestial bodies, it is not necessary to go down to the level of the atom because it is possible to separate the levels, that is, treat the star as one body with mass.
Likewise, I also think that in order to be a good biologist it is not necessary to understand nuclear physics.
The reductionist approach according to which every phenomenon can in principle be translated into subatomic components does not mean that the complexity increases as the levels rise. The opposite can be true, sometimes if we look at a high enough scale the phenomenon will become simpler.
ravine:
The complexity I talked about is not subjective at all.
If the laws of chemistry derive from the laws of physics and if the laws of biology derive from the laws of physics and chemistry then by definition - to understand the laws of biology one must understand the laws in the previous layers. It is an irreconcilable facet of the complexity of biological systems.
Beyond that, there are also other complexities.
By and large - biology is a case in terms of physics. We are currently aware of the individual case that exists on Earth, but we may find additional individual cases.
What can be said about all of them is indeed that they will all be private cases of physics and chemistry and it is also very reasonable to say about all of them that the mathematical laws of evolution are expected to apply to them (as they also apply to non-biological systems such as computer programs that apply evolution for the purpose of solving problems).
As mentioned, the biology that we know also suffers from the complexity of the amount of data that I talked about and in fact you also referred to it unconsciously when you talked about systems that are not closed because "closure" is achieved when we know everything about all the influencing factors and in biology this is never the case.
Even in "net" physics there are systems whose complexity prevents a full calculation of their behavior.
Even the following simple problem cannot be calculated - although it is clear that the laws governing it are the laws of physics:
A person who is disabled stands on one end of a "swing" with arms that are not necessarily equal.
On the other end a mass M is dropped from a height h.
along which route the person will fly.
This question came to my mind when I saw a video that shows exactly such a thing and where the person flies to a height that allows him to open a parachute and fall.
It was clear that this was a fabricated video (if only because of the accelerations that no human would have survived), but when I tried to calculate what exactly was the expected trajectory, I saw that countless assumptions had to be made about the friction, the properties of the material that makes up the swing, and more.
I also involved physicists from Dupalm and the conclusion was that the matter simply cannot be calculated.
Well - guests have arrived, so I'll finish for now.
R.H.:
I think there is a difference between the living and the inanimate world without direct connection to complexity (which exists at different levels in both, what's more, it is a very subjective term - what is complex today can be simple tomorrow) and regardless of the scientific research method to be used. The difference is that the animal world is a certain phenomenon (the only evidence of which is from the earth and that is where all the observational information comes from) and the inanimate world embraces a much wider field of phenomena - it was decided to call the first study biology and the second physics, but these are just names.
I think that a biologist who studies life in a certain area and a physicist-geologist may have more in common than a nuclear scientist and an optician (the opposite is also possible).
ravine,
You say "one of the studied phenomena belongs to the living world and the other to the inanimate world."
Do you think there is a difference between the living world and the inanimate world apart from complexity?
In my opinion complexity is the root of all difference. Physical and chemical laws will be "stronger" than biological ones, which will be more "stronger" than those of population biology, which will also be more "stronger" than those of psychology.
By "strong" I mean simple, precise and general (with a few exceptions).
R.H.:
You probably know better than me when the rules work and when they don't.
But I believe that the essence of physical law and biological law is the same. The law is some kind of abstraction and idealization of the world. A gap in physics in a non-closed system subject to external influences, bodies will not behave according to Newton's laws.
In my opinion, the difference between the laws of physics and the laws of biology does not stem from a difference in the way of inference and generalization, but from the arbitrary fact that one of the studied phenomena belongs to the living world and the other to the inanimate world.
ravine,
The problem with Mendel's laws for example is that there are so many exceptions and so many influencing elements. Just for example, Mendel's classical laws derived from peas are true when:
1) There are only two genes involved
2) One must be dominant and one completely recessive (not partial penetrance)
2) The genes are not on the X or Y chromosome
4) There is no environmental effect on the phenotype (the color of the flower, for example, is not affected by temperature conditions)
Countless counterexamples have been found for each of these sentences.
To this day there are phenomena whose genetic inheritance, if it exists at all, is not clear at all. For example, character traits, homosexuality, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and many others.
So it is extremely difficult to build orderly rules if the rule contains a minimal number of examples compared to the exceptions.
But don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things we know at the level of law. For example, how DNA replicates or how the translation system works. Chemical activity of enzymes and other reactions.
In my opinion, as you go further "down" in the phenomena to the chemical level, things become clearer.
I will give another example, in a genetic scan let's say for a trait like left-handedness and right-handedness in the hands, a gene will probably be found that codes for some kind of enzyme that changes substance X to Y. The activity of the enzyme is understood at the level of the law, but how a change in this gene ultimately manifests itself in favoring the right hand over the left is still a long way off. The way to understanding.
R.H.:
Of course, the wording was bad.
My intention is that it seems that this field is no less rigorous in terms of mathematical modeling than physics, and this is reflected in the fact that even mathematicians today deal with it. (Who am I to say that Darwin fell from some physicist...)
Regarding a biological law, I would say that Mendel's laws of inheritance are an example:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%94_%D7%A9%D7%9C_%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%93%D7%9C
ravine,
The quality of people in biology did not fall from the quality of people who were involved in physics even before computational biology 🙂
Indeed a beautiful puzzle, well done Guy.
sympathetic,
I don't understand why you call "biological laws"? Is the fact that proteins are coded in DNA a biological law? This is what we know, but there is no "law" that requires it. And the truth is that there are also proteins encoded in RNA (in viruses for example) and there are even peptides (short proteins) that are formed without coding.
For years they referred to the so-called "central model of biology" that she said
DNA ==> RNA ==> PROTEIN until Timing and Baltimore came and discovered the reverse-transcriptase enzyme that synthesizes DNA from RNA.
So in conclusion, the biological "laws" are much more flexible, brittle and questionable compared to the physical ones, not because of the nature of the biologists but because of the nature of the systems in question.
A beautiful puzzle indeed.
R. H. (52):
I don't understand computational biology, but my impression is that this field does not fall from physics in terms of mathematical modeling and also in terms of the people involved in it - it seems that the best computer scientists and mathematicians today deal with questions in the context of computational biology.
Ghost:
Guy understood the question and also solved it.
At the end of response 53 he also gave R.H.'s question an answer that deals with what R.H. did not understand.
Basically "possible time" is a combination of the positions of the hands on the clock that describes a time that exists in reality.
For example - if you change the hands at 6 o'clock you will get a combination of hand positions that is not accepted in reality because when the big hand is at 6 the small hand cannot be at 12 because it has to be exactly in the middle between two hours.
Guy (55): Indeed, that's what I meant.
Is not that right?
sympathetic:
We tend to believe in the cosmological principle and the measurements we have made in the meantime (also of distant objects) confirm our belief.
Therefore, in my opinion - there is no region in the universe where the laws of physics are different.
Biology is different from physics because it is based on a certain coincidence which is not necessarily the only one that deserves to be called "biology". This is related to the speculations that are repeated here often in the question "Could it be possible for life to be based on materials different from those on which our lives are based?"
I don't know how to answer this question and in my opinion - as long as we don't find life based on other chemical substances we won't know how to answer it.
Of course it is also related to the question "What is life anyway?" But let's assume that we passed this question safely (a reasonable assumption, in my opinion, because I think that even if there are chemical systems that we disagree about their being alive, we can still, in most cases, agree that a system is alive or not).
The interesting thing is that precisely for the question about evolution I am quite sure of the answer because, as I mentioned - evolution is actually a mathematical sentence that draws certain conclusions from certain conditions (the existence of replicators, etc.) ".
I just now read the last sentence of your comment and I actually see that our views are quite similar.
Machel
Regarding the puzzle you presented, I see that their question is the intention of the puzzle and they fail to understand it properly.
To be honest, I'm not even sure I understand the meaning of the puzzle you presented.
My answer (from what I understand) is that if the hands are replaced then there will be no change in terms of displaying the correct time
There will be only one difference that the small hand will complete a full coffee (from 12 to 12) within an hour instead of within 12 hours.
This means that during the day (12 hours) the small hand will complete 12 full coffee times. And the big hand will complete one lap. I don't know how to go on and answer your question about how many times the clock will show a possible time.
What is a 'possible hour'? The clock constantly shows a time that is correct, I didn't really understand the riddle.
sympathetic:
Aren't all the laws of nature - both those of physics and those of biology - originated from the generalization of observations?
In this sense, both are coincidental - that is, dependent on the currently available observational information, and any additional observational information may change their validity.
If we formulate a law in biology, obviously the observations collected so far are only from the earth and therefore attacks are limited only there.
In physics we are able to make observations over greater distances in space and time and therefore the so-called attack increases.
However, any observational information that contradicts one of the laws here or there undermines the validity of the law
Correction: it seems that there are 24*12 minus 1 of these, i.e. 287?
It seems that if you draw the graph of the angle of the small hand against the large one at different times and then draw the reverse graph (that is, change axes) you get the answer as the intersection points (this is why there is such a pattern...)
Really simpler - is this the answer?
Michal and R.H.
Let's say for a moment the question of complexity. Michael, you claim and I agree with you that you cannot know things for sure, only a growing uncertainty. I asked you and R.H. Is the degree of certainty we attribute to biological laws the same as the degree of certainty we attribute to physical laws? Is it possible to have a region in the universe where the laws of physics are different? It is likely that physics does not assume that there are the same physical laws throughout the universe. What if biological laws are they general or specific to the earth? Is it possible that evolution is only valid on Earth? If this is not the case, what is its validity? The validity of scientific theories comes from observations of the universe. We have the ability to observe from Earth, but we have not yet encountered creatures from other planets, so how do we determine how they will develop.
I believe that the laws of physics are general, while the laws of biology are accidental, they depend on the way in which life developed on Earth and the limited way in which we choose to define life.
I think the possible solutions would look like this:
If we denote by T the time, then all the solutions to the following equation:
T=T*N*60-K*60
For K and N integers and T between 0 and 24
24*24 like that?
R.H.:
Three o'clock is not a legal hour because at 12:15 the small hand is not exactly at 12 but a little after
By the way Guy, there is a whole field in biology called computational biology where they really model and try to make biology more mathematical and less descriptive.
I didn't understand the riddle. What does a possible hour mean? After all, if we take let's say the hour 3 and change the hands we will get 12:15
Guy, R.H.:
In my opinion, everyone tries to be as rigorous as they can and in biology it is simply less possible - because of the complexity.
Your response reminded me for several reasons of one of the jokes about the difference between a gambler, a statistician and a physicist:
A gambler, a statistician and a physicist are trying to estimate - each in their own way - the results of a horse race that should be held the next day.
The bettor simply bets and says that he thinks the horse "Chauncy" will win.
The statistician is not so superficial: he checks the pedigree and the past results of all the horses and their families and comes to the conclusion that the winner will be the "expected" horse.
The physicist sees that the problem is complex and therefore - beyond the data taken by the statistician, he also measures every measurable detail in the horses and retires to his office to make calculations.
A day passes, the race passes, two days pass... After a week he calls his two friends and invites them to a meeting where, with tired eyes but with endless enthusiasm, he announces to them: "I have already solved the problem for spherical horses!"
And to the point: even paintings, if done correctly, do not constitute a waiver of rigor. Of course, they need to be accompanied by the appropriate words, but this is just another way of expression that says "one picture is worth a thousand words".
To illustrate the point (and just for fun) I will present you the following puzzle and after you have dealt with it - I will present my solution to this puzzle - a solution in which the drawing is an important component.
the riddle:
Let's say you took a dial clock and swapped the big hand and the small hand.
How many times during the day will the clock show a possible time (that is, one that occasionally appears even on a regular clock)?
M*Kal, R. H.:
It seems that the matter of increasing complexity is indeed part of the explanation.
I wonder if there is also another element - whether, as can be seen from R.H.'s joke, when a biologist and a physicist study the exact same phenomenon, they will analyze it differently. Would the rigor and precision of physicists advance biology? Can the less rigid vision of biologists contribute to physics?
As Machal pointed out, physicists also deal with complex systems - Fourier developed the mathematical tools that were missing when he examined the phenomenon of heat conduction, Kelvin formulated the laws of thermodynamics, which also deals with what, naively, could be considered a very complex system.
Even in biology there are examples of people who simplified phenomena that seem very complex - Mendel, Darwin who dealt with genetics and Fisher who even developed statistical tools for analyzing experiments.
Even when describing a phenomenon pictorially, we simplify the phenomenon - so isn't it appropriate that this simplification be carried out formally in mathematical language?
On the other hand, it also seems that physicists use the pictorial language to describe phenomena. When Bohr described the model of the atom, didn't he use the very drawing to describe spherical electrons moving in a circle around a spherical nucleus? Where in Newton's equations can I find the information that the force causes the mass to move with acceleration and not the other way around? I'm not that well versed in physics, but it sounds like the background story is just as important in physics as the equations.
from the devil,
well said. I will only add that even in terms of chemistry, biology is at the upper end of the complexity because biochemistry and especially enzymology deal with tertiary structures of macromolecules that are in many cases in dynamic complexes with other macromolecules so that the laws of "normal" chemistry are not sufficient just as it is difficult to apply the laws of physics in chemical processes.
Guy and R.H.:
In my opinion, the difference between physical theories and biological theories is not just a matter of style.
It should be understood that according to what is known to science - chemistry is a result of physics and biology is a result of physics and chemistry (and if we continue further - human psychology is a result of physics, chemistry and biology and so on for sociology and social sciences).
In other words - we are dealing with a growing complexity that, as we go up through its stages, we are in a state of less mature knowledge.
In addition to this - and this is also related to the lesser complexity - in physics, we often deal with the behavior of individual physical components about which the amount of data to be known is limited. As we go up in the hierarchy of complexity, we find ourselves handling more and more different components with unique behavior at the same time - which requires the "calculation" of the behavior to be based on much more data (even in the sun there are many elementary particles, but these are simple components whose number of types is limited and it is possible to get the behavior their collective through statistics without requiring much data). This is, therefore, a much higher computational complexity - on the one hand - and the need to know a lot of data about the calculated system - on the other hand.
Therefore the calculation in physics is much more applicable than in chemistry and the calculation in chemistry is much more applicable than in biology.
The "applicability of the calculation" that I am talking about - it is also divided into several areas, each of which is more problematic as the complexity increases:
One area is the very ability to build equations that handle everything that is needed.
A second area is the availability of the many data needed for the calculation.
The third area is that of the computational complexity (everyone who has dealt with computer science knows that there are problems that, although in principle there is an algorithm that solves them, running the algorithm on a lot of data is impractical because the calculation will take trillions of years).
So what are the laws of biology?
Well - as can be seen from the above - at the most reductionist level - the laws of biology are the laws of physics - but this is too reductionist and therefore not useful - in biology we are never faced with a small number of particles whose behavior needs to be calculated.
On a less reductionist level - these are the laws of physics and the laws of chemistry.
The laws of chemistry are also a consequence of the physical laws, but they are specifically adapted to deal with the higher complexity that was decided to be called "chemistry". These laws are already applied here and there in biology and they are used by us, among other things, in planning foods, fertilizers and medicines.
Beyond the above, there are other laws in biology, among which we can name, for example, the laws of evolution.
The laws of evolution relate to such a high level of complexity (in all the areas of complexity that I have mentioned) that in most cases it is impractical to use them for the purposes of predicting the behavior and development of an ecosystem (or of individuals within it), but these are completely defined laws that make it possible to predict the results of various experiments such as the experiment described here
.
revealed:
You don't see why evolutionary theories should bother a Jewish believer.
Pretty.
But on the other hand, they do disturb a lot of Jewish believers.
Not pretty.
Religious belief requires the ability to put up with many contradictions and your words are only a small demonstration of this ability.
ravine,
A great many biological phenomena, including evolutionary processes from computer models, meaning that they have an exact mathematical description. The pictorial theories I described are simply style. Physicists and chemists are much more pedantic and precise (also from the very phenomena they study).
There is a joke with a beard that demonstrates the difference. A biologist, physicist and mathematician travel by train in Ireland and see a black continent.
Biologist: I conclude that all the sheep in Ireland are black
Physicist: I conclude that Ireland has at least one black continent
The mathematician: I conclude that there is at least one continent in Ireland that has at least one side black.
Now think about the biologist's answer.
There really is a difference between physical evidence and biological evidence. As described by R. H. And the pictorial theories according to him are from the very essence of man. that we don't have the tools to see everything and this is where intuition comes to our aid in building some of the scientific theories. As science progresses, new questions arise. And so we can see our smallness. This is also the case with astronomical theories. I don't see why evolutionary theories should bother a Jewish believer. After all, evolution is proven by the study of bacteria. And there you clearly see the evolutionary changes and mutations in bacteria. But still this does not contradict the biblical story. Because to contradict him there was someone who had to be present there. What we learn from contemporary research does not contradict anything in Judaism. And it has not been proven that man was created from a monkey. And there are many scholars who are scientists. One of them received the Nobel Prize a year or two ago. So stop comparing religion and science. and try to underestimate the value of the believing person. It has nothing to do with science. This is pettiness. The late Professor Leibovich was also a scientist and a scholar.
R.H.:
Do you think the pictorial description is a necessary feature of research in biology or have the appropriate tools not yet been found for a general and accurate description of biological phenomena. For example, evolution is a general biological theory based on a series of simpler principles and is valid for a wide range of phenomena (does it have a mathematical description?), are there other such theories?
Is this a limitation of mathematics that does not allow an accurate description of phenomena from the world of biology?
ravine,
I am not familiar enough with what physical theories look like beyond their populist presentation. However, in my understanding they are structured in a very formal way and arranged like mathematical proofs and necessarily also rest on a solid mathematical basis (maybe Ehud can help here?)
On the other hand, in biology many theories are more picturesque. For example, a biological theory in an article could sound like this: "Protein X of mice affects the lifespan of the cell because it is similar to protein Y found to increase the lifespan of fungi. How will we check? We will download the gene for protein X and measure the lifespan of these cells compared to those that contain X."
R.H.:
I will try to repeat the question I raised earlier.
From your experience, what does a biological theory consist of (if it is customary to use this term at all)? It seems that biology is not built on a clear set of laws, but is conducted in a slightly different way than physics. Can you tell the difference between the two?
sympathetic:
I have to go, so I'll answer in short (whatever Shar. H has already done part of the work).
You didn't ask about predictability but you probably know that the non-existence of a prediction of a theory is a refutation of the theory. Therefore - the theory of evolution will be disproved by any of its predictions that are not fulfilled (in fact, with the exception of exposing logical errors in any theory - predictions that are not fulfilled provide the only way of refutation).
Regarding certainty - I have already said before - it is something we have to learn to live without because it is not attainable at all.
We do have certainty about our subjective feelings, but we will never achieve certainty about everything that happens in the outside world.
There are, however, things about which a higher degree of confidence can be formed than others. These things are indeed the theories that provide testable predictions.
sympathetic,
It is not clear to me exactly what you mean by conditions that will disprove evolution, but I will try to answer in several ways.
1) If one day the heavens open and a voice comes out and the Messiah comes and shows us that everything was created at the same time, we will accept that evolution was wrong.
2) If one day in a massive way and not as a result of some local geological aberration fossils of people and dogs are found under dinosaurs and trilobites we will understand that there is some kind of problem here.
3) When we find new species created out of nothing. Not in some remote jungle but on a farm in the middle of the USA
4) When a dog litters a cat in front of the CNN cameras
5) And another direction is that there are indeed conditions where evolution does not work (which does not mean it is not true) in your singularity analogy. For example conditions of complete destruction, no production can survive, then there is no game and there is no "survival of the fittest" and of course there is no evolution
What can we know for sure? We don't know everything
Examples:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/852494.html
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3458861,00.html
Michael
I did not ask about the predictability of evolution, but I asked if you are able to imagine a situation in which it will be discovered that evolution is not true? For example, a point you have already made in the physical context is the inability of general relativity to deal with singularities. Is general relativity a lesser theory than evolution since it is clear that there are situations in which it does not hold. What is the relationship between physical laws of nature and biological laws of nature? The interesting sentence in the article in my opinion is the same sentence quoted by Guy "The laws of biology are just as accurate as the laws of physics".
Plus you completely ignored my question what can we know for sure? You rightly argued that we will never know for sure what Julius Caesar said to Brutus (if he said anything at all) at the moment of the assassination." But you didn't answer what do you think we can know for sure at all?
R.H.:
In my opinion, what is happening here is even better than what is happening outside.
True - the site is a magnet for evolution deniers because it writes about evolution.
The Haaretz newspaper writes less about evolution and is therefore less of a magnet for evolution deniers.
The degree of magnetism is like the number of articles on evolution.
An article about growing lettuce in the territories will not directly lead to comments on evolution.
If it is too scientific for the naysayers among us, it will provoke a reaction from them and during the debate that will arise, evolution may also rise.
This is because there are no evolution trolls and there are religion trolls.
ghosts,
Who is mad at Dr. Weinstein? I expressed my opinion to the body of an article and not to the body of the author.
from the devil,
The knowledge site is a magnet for virtual street fights on the virtual grass on the subject of evolution, it seems to me that even a discussion of the article on growing lettuce in the territories will eventually lead to a debate on evolution, so even if the claim is true about it, it does not, in my opinion, represent what is happening outside of it.
R.H
Dr. Weinstein only translated the article by R. Dawkins, and not 'authored this article'.
It is not clear to me why you think that Weinstein is the author of the article and why are you upset that she posted the article here.
Besides - the science site is not intended only for scientists and in relation to the commenters here - the claim presented in the article is completely correct.
Here there are no street fights on the lawn for only two reasons:
1. A street is not a lawn
2. There is neither a street nor a lawn here
Rah:
I think your statistics regarding Israel are also inaccurate but if that is what bothers you then the mistake is somewhere else. The article is not talking about Israel but about the world.
Look, as I wrote above to Yair, abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing. If the religious are angry about something, it's about abiogenesis and the distorted claim that "man descended from monkeys". In any case these questions are not at the forefront of biology today and there is a small handful of groups trying to wonder about possibilities for creating life.
Most of the scientists I know (and I know a few here and there) do not deal with philosophical existential questions during the normal working day, but with the control mechanism they are investigating. And there, everyone without exception, religious or not, by the way uses the methods derived from evolution, that is, mutations and selections. I don't believe there is a scientist who would refuse to put the engineered cells under selection.
It is clear that the Free website and its ilk, which is their agenda, deal with this, as does Discovery, but it does not represent any majority. So it's true that from time to time there is even an article on the subject in Nature, do you know, father, how many articles are there on the P53 protein?
Regarding the religious scientists, I meant Israel where Bar Ilan has a religious majority and the other universities have a significant percentage of religious scientists and I don't see street fights on the lawn about the correctness of evolution which is accepted by everyone except for a small and bizarre percentage who are usually not biologists. And again if there is a disagreement it is at the beginning of life and we have already agreed that we will not be able to resolve this in the near future.
R. H. The goal is to root out the very popular opinion in the general public, and you are invited to look at the Freedom website on the one hand (which also fights the phenomenon) and the Mahbatim websites on the other and see how many Israelis believe in creationist nonsense despite all the evidence. Nature, in the articles I provided links to, also fights the same problem, no one says it exists in academia
R.H.:
The question does not imply the correctness of the theories, but the correctness of the theories is relevant to it.
If the two theories were not in a similar state of correctness it would be less justified to ask the question why the public tends to believe the theory whose correctness is highly confirmed and reject the theory whose correctness is less confirmed.
The opposition to evolution actually occupies a large place in the world, and if there are countless in this story, then it is countless studies and websites that deal with exactly this opposition.
The whole war over the teaching of creationism in the US is part of this story and books by Dawkins, Weinberg and many other scientists deal with it.
And regarding the "countless" - the number of religious scientists is actually "countless" and not "countless"
Among other things, this is evidenced by the following studies:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/748/479.html
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3480323,00.html
True, but what is interesting and what does it have to do with the correctness/incorrectness of the theories if the public likes them or not? Not even their inventor? It is clear to all of us that the opposition to evolution from the religious side is emotional and not practical. trivial.
In addition, as I wrote above, the picture of tremendous resistance to evolution is depicted here on the site of science and the like. In the academy, which also includes countless religious scientists, this is a question that hardly ever comes up. There is no self-respecting scientist who does not use evolutionary methods to create his mutants.
R.H.:
It seems to me that you are confusing here the question that appears in the article and a question that does not appear in it.
A survey that would compare the popularity of Darwin to that of Einstein would indeed not endanger its editor, but a survey that would try to prove that the reason for the differences in popularity is religious would endanger its editor (well, maybe I am exaggerating a bit, if we are talking about Israel or the West but in Islamic countries it is probably Really true and on second thought - maybe even in Israel. In any case, the things were written just to convey an idea).
And as mentioned - it's interesting and relevant and you yourself participated more than once in debates about evolution in front of people whose entire reason for dragging you into the debate was religious.
from the devil,
I don't think something that was a sample of popularity between Einstein and Darwin would have risked his life. What is a bit upsetting in the current article is that the author states a fact without any substantiation that "two scientists discovered less than 50 years apart how the universe works - one in the biological aspect and the other in the physical aspect. Both are equally correct, why in the public does one get XNUMX and the other XNUMX?"
So first of all I'm really, really not sure about the TRS and second point who is interested and why exactly is it relevant? Such a poll takes place on sites that check who is more popular, Justin Bieber or Selena Gomez.
sympathetic:
I was not talking about the unification of relativity with quantum theory, which is a big and well-known problem, but about problems that arise in relativity itself.
In principle, if we had not encountered the strange phenomena of the quantum world, it would be possible to think that relativity covers everything, even regarding elementary particles, and the problems of this unification would not have been revealed, but the problems I pointed out (of infinities or singularities) would still arise and indicate that the theory of relativity does not work In situations where it gives infinite results.
Regarding what is interesting and what is not - it is true that no research was presented in the article, but on the one hand it is clear what the research was suggesting and on the other hand - whoever conducted it would have risked his life.
The question is indeed interesting and it is no coincidence that the discussion of this question appears here in many comments while the only mention of Einstein's socks is in your last comment.
The question discussed in the article belongs to the field of psychology of a large part of humanity - while the question about Einstein's socks belongs at most to Einstein's psychology.
Regarding the predictions of the theory of evolution - the subject has already been condemned to exhaustion and raising the question again is an exhausting matter.
I will mention in this context only the discussion that developed further to this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/future-from-biu-2311106/#comment-280824
And this article:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/
Michael
There is indeed a problem of unifying general relativity and quantum theory that I did not address in my words to R.H. The problem, as you mentioned, involves getting infinities in certain calculations, but that is not enough. In the early days of quantum electrodynamics, every calculation in perturbation theory produced infinite results, but a way was found to handle them by the renormalization process. Thanks to the invention of this process, Feynman, Tomanga and Schwinger won the Nobel Prize in Physics. The problem with general relativity is that the infinities apparently cannot be eliminated by renormalization.
Regarding topics that are more interesting and less interesting, there is indeed a place for everything, the question is only in what context? A fashion article explaining why Einstein didn't wear socks, in my opinion, has no place on a scientific website, and likewise the article discussing who is more popular, Einstein or Darwin, but as mentioned, this is my opinion. In addition, the article is not a study that examined the above question, but only the answers given by a certain physicist when asked about it. In my opinion, the above physicist's opinion on these issues is as good as the opinion of any other reasonable person and has no priority, therefore the entire above interview is fundamentally nonsense. The introduction of religion into the subject is also done without context. By the way, the theory of relativity also received irrelevant criticism in Nazi Germany and at a certain period in the Soviet Union. Why did this not damage Einstein's status?
In my opinion, the interesting questions in the context of the article are the questions raised by Guy. Questions such as what are the laws of nature and in this context is it possible to think of a situation where some experiment would contradict evolution or does evolution have a religious status and thanks to its sanctity it cannot be contradicted? Or in the context of your claim "we will never know for sure what Julius Caesar said to Brutus (if he said anything at all) at the moment of the assassination." What then can we know for sure at all?
Regarding the following sentence from the article:
"The laws of biology are as precise as the laws of physics"
Can a biological field be reduced to a series of laws? How is the accuracy of a biological theory measured?
What are the predictions made in biological research? Is the success or failure of a biological theory measured according to quantitative information or does biology strive more for a qualitative explanation of processes?
How is it different from physics?
revealed:
I didn't pay attention to your words until I saw my father's reaction.
I would like to add something to your words:
The situation is not such that it will take scientists a long time to reach the conclusions of Judaism, but they will never reach these conclusions.
really! Not just a long time but infinite time!
Of course, the reason for this is that the conclusions of Judaism are mostly nonsense and the fact is that before the development of science, they did not find in the holy books any way to fly to the moon, no way to cure malaria, no way to prolong life, no way to talk to each other beyond shouting distance, no way to move distances of Thousands of kilometers in a few hours, no way to see and hear events that are happening at this very moment at the ends of the earth and no way that will allow idiots to express their nonsense in a way that anyone can read.
for her age
In order for the students of the sages to not only quibble and study science seriously, they need some conditions.
1. Core studies - mathematics and English at a high level to understand scientific articles and analyze the statistical data that appear in them.
2. They need real knowledge of biology, one that is learned in laboratories and not in books from hundreds of years ago.
3. You ask not to compare Judaism with Christianity and Islam, where exactly do the Jewish and Muslim fanatics get their opposition to evolution if not from the Discovery Institute?
4. Humanity has existed for at least 200 thousand years according to the mitochondria, Judaism has existed according to its own books (and this is also probably exaggerated by at least a thousand years) 4,000 years. The distance between this and the beginning of mankind is like the difference between shooting a basket in a basketball game and flying to the moon.
R. H. Raf*im,
Mc*El answered your question on the 19th.
Yair,
You and many others are confusing evolution with the beginning of life. The theory of the beginning of life is not derived from evolution and vice versa. Even if life started on another planet and arrived on an asteroid, and even if it was created here in the sea or in the air or in the depths of the earth, evolution will be the same evolution. In addition, as Michael answered you, there is no issue of pessimism here. I don't see today how anything proves how life was created. Even if something prepares an "primitive soup" in which replicating molecules and even cells are created, does this mean that this is how life actually came about? Or is it just one option?
revealed,
Before you underestimate the man who sat at the expense of the English establishment (??) in the Galapagos, I suggest you read a little, not a lot, about the man's work. There are not many people in history (well maybe except Einstein) who had such enlightenment and brilliance as Darwin's that changed the face of human knowledge and turned it upside down. And if you don't mind, the "modern evolution scientifically tested by computers" as you say is based on his words
The comparison between Darwin and Einstein is a bit strange. And you don't have to twist to try to compare them. Why is the theory of evolution contrary to Judaism? And sorry, please don't compare Christianity and Islam. They don't have clerics who are great scientists. Yes, father, there are scholars who are very serious about science. If there is evolution, does that mean that man descended from monkeys? what is the proof Recent studies of the human genome of the D.N. an island. They show that according to the branches of DNA evolution, the human race is relatively very young on Earth. During Darwin's time, England was colonialist and it was a fashion to send scientists to all corners of the world. And he sat, I think, on the Galapagos Islands or some other remote island at the expense of the English establishment and watched animals for a long time. According to their imagination for other animals he developed his teachings. It is not like the modern theory of evolution which is scientifically tested using computers. And why not say it openly? It will take all the wise men another year to understand what Judaism has understood since the beginning of the existence of the human race.
Year:
In the debate between you and R.H. about the future - I agree with R.H
We will never know for sure how life came to be just as we will never know for sure what Julius Caesar said to Brutus (if he said anything at all) at the moment of the assassination.
We can find out what might have happened but to know if this is really what happened we would need time travel and that, in my opinion, will never be possible.
Ehud and R.H.:
A few things in brief:
1. In my opinion, the existence of calculations in the general relations that yield the result "infinity" indicates a problem. It seems pretty clear to me that in situations where the theory of relativity gives this result, it gives a wrong result.
2. Each person has topics that interest him more and topics that interest him less.
Those who are interested in human psychology are obviously interested in the question presented in the article.
3. All objections to evolution are motivated by religious motives and it is not wise to ignore these motives when responding to objections. Of course, it is possible not to deal with the subject at all, but it seems to me that at least R.H. does find it appropriate to answer the religious trolls who attack evolution and so do I. Something that comes up so much in the comments, it is allowed to have articles that deal with it
R.H.
You are pessimistic about the future, it seems to me that you stick to what is found in your claims today. In my estimation, there has already been considerable progress in understanding the beginning of life, which is manifested in the knowledge of the molecular structures in the cell, and in fact I have no doubt that in the future knowledge will be created about the beginning of the oceans that will contribute a lot to the understanding of the evolutionary processes, a vague understanding so far.
Do Israelis just lie?
Apparently, to tell the truth you have to be more than just.
Just an Israeli - about 40% of the pages in these newspapers contain journalistic editorial materials and include a lot of things related to religion, in particular with regard to the religious attack on evolution - please
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7040/full/435276b.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448022b.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/edsumm/e050428-01.html
Etc. etc'.
To my father (response 4)
Science and Nature deal with science, and there is no article about whether or not God exists. As someone who has already published in these newspapers - check it out.
The science website tries to link religion and science, and that is what makes it dangerous. Both for science and religion.
R. H. (12)
I could not understand what you mean, I would appreciate it if you could explain.
You wrote "regarding the question of the origin of life":
"All that is possible and is being tried today is to show - how and under what conditions life could have been created. Even if such conditions are found, it still does not mean that this is what happened."
So, what can confirm that life did exist under those particular conditions? Must be a live bacterium? And if the bacteria really existed in those conditions but in today's conditions they no longer exist - how could you know that?
Yair,
Obviously there are countless dark spots in our understanding. Do we know how the brain works? What is the function of each protein? How do the biological control mechanisms work and many other questions that are answered by new controllers in the many articles that are published all the time.
Regarding the question of the origin of life, in my opinion it is more of an archeological question than a biological one and probably if Ehud and his friends do not invent a time machine for us or the intelligent creator suddenly appears and tells us we will not be able to answer it either. All that is possible and is being tried today is to show how and under what conditions life could have been created. Even if such conditions are found, it still does not mean that this is what happened.
sympathetic,
First of all, thanks for setting things straight.
Regarding your question about whether evolution is an all encompassing rule, I believe it is. Given every system in the world whose components reproduce with a certain percentage of accuracy (mutations) and there is competition for resources (selection) between its components, the fittest will always survive. It is taught in biological systems and many computer simulations.
Another point related to the article is why the religious are so opposed to evolution and less to relativity and the answer to it is trivial. Relativity and modern physics do not directly contradict the Holy Scriptures, one can even find parallels between "And there was light" and the Big Bang and claim that the seven days were seven ages and so on. On the other hand, evolution directly challenges the Holy Scriptures and it is a little more difficult to adapt it through one loophole or another.
ravine,
as a result of a malfunction. The issue is under treatment.
R.H.
There are several inaccuracies in your claims, but in my opinion you are right in the bottom line. The article discusses a stupid question or a collection of stupid questions asked by a physicist in relation to sociological contexts. I find no point
On the question of why Einstein is valued more or less than Darwin and does Einstein resemble a rock star in his publication?
The beauty of science is the theories themselves and about them you can ask more interesting questions than in the article. I also agree in this context with Schmitz, why should everything be linked to religion? Much more interesting than the scientific questions themselves
Pseudo-psychological claims that try to analyze why a certain character is recognized and the other less so.
R.H. Regarding inaccuracies in claims. Regarding the special theory of relativity, it cannot be claimed that it has problems as far as we know today. Also regarding general relativity the question is, is there a cosmological constant or not? Still doesn't change the theory, even given Einstein's statement that introducing the cosmological constant into his theory was the biggest mistake of his scientific life. The introduction of a cosmological constant or not is not dictated by the Einstein equation, there is freedom to introduce such a term or not depending on the observations. Einstein was captivated by the concept of a static universe, so he made sure to introduce the cosmological constant. The famous astronomer Abel showed that the universe is actually expanding, so there is no need for this type of constant. Today, thanks to observations, the constant has returned again... You rightly claim that the theory of relativity as it is formulated is not compatible with quantum theory, but on the other hand, is the rule of evolution (random mutation + selection) all encompassing? Does it apply to every biological system from the micro level to the organism and species level does it always hold? Interesting questions do arise, some of which were mentioned in the article. What is natural law? What does it apply to? What are the conditions it must fulfill and in particular should it be quantitative or should it be a guiding principle? In my opinion, these questions are much more interesting than questions like who is stronger, Superman or Batman?
Rach.
Biology has no less gray and dark areas than physics, such as the beginning of life.
Why is the summary of the latest comments no longer appearing on the main page?
In my opinion, the presentation of the subject in the article is wrong and misleading.
Perhaps on popular websites such as Hidan and others, because of some loud talkbackists, the impression is created that (and I quote) "Biologist Charles Darwin's legacy is shrouded in a cloud of controversy."
In fact, the opposite is true. All branches of molecular biology, modern medicine, agriculture and biotechnology are based on evolutionary principles. Every day in laboratories all over the world mutants and genetic constructs are produced using principles learned from evolution (random mutation + selection).
On the other hand, it is clear to all physicists that there are problems with the theories of relativity. yes cosmological constant no cosmological constant yes dark energy and matter or not? It is also clear that the equations of relativity conflict with those of quantum mechanics so that it follows that both do not fully describe reality.
About being social icons. What does it matter anyway? And even if it is important for something, they lived in different times with different communication. I guess Darwin is considered a more recognizable icon than let's say Newton. The presentation of Darwin as TRS is really ridiculous.
No. Ben Ner - of course, it is also written in the article itself.
Schmitz, I have some practical advice for you. After all, if we give up on the issue of religious belief, the global warming deniers, the supporters of homeopathy, the opponents of water fluoridation, etc. will immediately follow them and ask to change the approach of the science website only in their narrow scope, where will we end up?
The practical proposition is this. Try to convince Science and Nature of the exact same thing, and if you succeed, the science site will also follow suit. Successfully.
In my opinion, the disagreement with Darwin's theory is not among the scientific community, but mainly among others
The religious establishment. Precisely in the scientific community, Darwin's theory is a consensus, as are teachings
Einstein's relativity.
The question that arises then is, why the religious establishments of Christianity, Judaism and Islam
They united in their opposition to Darwin's theory and did not do the same towards Einstein's theory of relativity?
The answer to this, in my opinion, is quite simple:
Darwin's theory is easier to understand, while Einstein's theories of relativity are understood by a vast majority of the public
does not understand (and does not even try to understand) It is understood that one cannot oppose something that is vague and incomprehensible.
As a result the religious establishments realize that while opposition to Darwinism can be used for them
An extremely effective political lever for recruiting supporters is that there is no opposition to incomprehensible relativistic doctrines
It has the power to be a political driving force and investing effort in it is unprofitable from their point of view.
I would add that psychology in general and psychoanalysis in particular is somewhere in the middle in terms of the attitude of the believers.
But the truth is that the change in research on the human soul has more significant consequences for the perception of the believer's faith. Which basically proves that their whole resistance thing is childish psychological.
This Richard Dawkins has become a clown.
I read and loved the book "The Selfish Garden". But since his shocking "Is There God?" appeared, together with the television program "Darwin's Revolution" that was broadcast on Yes, he has become one of the last of the street thugs.
The aforementioned book is full of assessments, slanders and insights such as "the reasonable person surely cannot think that..."...
Well, most reasonable people thought until 400 years ago that the Earth stood on the backs of 4 giant turtles. Since then we have progressed. Dawkins still thinks he himself represents the reasonable man.
The supporters of evolution have not yet realized, as well as most of the dark people in the world, that there is no connection between relativity, evolution and the existence of God.
These theories predict processes, not causes. They do not have the essence of the primary cause. Why are things the way they are? Why were they designed this way? Unknown.
It is known what the mechanism is from point A to B, but what led to situation A and why this dynamic, not how, is unknown.
I really suggest that the science system stop trying to link questions of physics and evolution to the existence of God. There is no connection between the two, except that it is God who created the universe and - yes - evolution.