The Black Box

September 10, 2009
By

Northcoast: D ShayneI’ve been reading a book by Michael S. Behe entitled “Darwin’s Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution“. David Berlinski, who authored the wonderful A Tour of the Calculus, states that understanding the defense of Darwin necessitates knowing the material in this book and I humbly agree.

This challenge is the exact opposite of the so-called “Intelligent Design” lobby. The biochemistry of life, so it seems, precludes many of the basic assumptions of Darwinian evolution. The critique comes strictly from science itself, as it should. Even that old egomaniac, Watson, is made to look, shall we say, evasive regarding the monolith of problems and questions brought up by the latest discoveries in the field of microbiology.

Why is this coming out now? Because we are learning more, it’s that simple. This information wasn’t available in Darwin’s time (and really does not in any way denigrate the brilliance of his achievement.) And, also in the best scientific sense, we presently have NO explanation for all this contradictory information, just the phenomenon itself. It takes in my opinion, far more discipline to admit we don’t have string theory “tied up” or that microbiology is not fully “evolved” then to try and rig up a faulty explanation just because NOVA wants to do a special.

It seems science is starting to split apart and advance very unevenly. The Amazing Randi or some other pitbull-for-hire who sees himself guarding “science” may soon be talking out of step with the most up-to-date investigations while simultaneously quoting the middle of the road gospel of a previous, and superannuated,  generation of researchers.

I remember for instance the confidence one of my science teachers displayed explaining the lightning theory of Miller in the formation of incipient DNA. We had no idea that this bit of news from Science Digest would develop so many holes, so many problems. How gullible we were. How scientific.

All this bears on the examination of human energetics. Does that mean Qi exists or doesn’t?  No, of course not. Does it mean we can accept silly and weak explanations of what it might or might not be? No. Nor can we discard the whole question. None of this makes this phenomenon, experienced by millions of people over hundreds of years, eligible to be  thrown into the same category as the Yeti. More research, please, less doubt.

At present all we have is the phenomenon. But that’s ultimately the most valuable thing in the world. Let’s not allow ourselves to be swayed from our efforts to confront the science of reality,  just to please the skeptics defending not science but doctrine.

To quote Behe, “Refusal to give others broad latitude for their defining belief has led time and again to disaster. Intolerance does not arise when I think that I have found the truth. Rather it comes about only when I think that because I have found it, everyone else should agree with me.”

One Response to The Black Box

  1. Karl Merritt on September 15, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    This is a thought provoking article! If I get you right then Qigong might be a more complex intersection of multiple causes rather than the “energy plasma” everyone seems to be looking for. I can’t help thinking of Qi and imagining that we are searching for Michelson/Morley’s “ether” only inside of us rather than externally. Very interesting though I think you are a little hard on the watchdogs.