Science, Ignorance, and Fruit Flies

[elder999]

Scientific study has been getting a bad rap lately from the religious right and the current presidential administration. It’s almost as if the central mission of science-uncovering the truth about the universe through observation and experimentation-is diametrically opposed to the worldview of Bush and his followers. This strikes me as quite odd, considering that the religious righties always seem to be certain that they-and they alone-know the truth about god, the universe and everything. You’d think that they’d welcome the application of objective, scientific principles to their centuries-old belief systems. Instead, they seem to fear that scientific inquiry holds the power to disprove them. These are generally the same people who think that the concepts of evolution and a creator are mutually exclusive. To me, these concepts are only mutually exclusive in the narrowest of minds.

I think that’s sad, because, so far, science has been really useful behind eliminating the flimsy excuses behind much of the world’s moralizing, bigotry and hatred that comes from ignorance and fear of the unkown. For example, no one still believes that a person in the throes of an epileptic fit is really being possessed by the devil, and hardly anyone still believes that a person’s intelligence is determined by the color of their skin. Unfortunately, science can only eliminate the flimsy excuses-not the actual moralizing, bigotry and hatred. There are still white people who insist that black people aren’t as smart. Such white people clearly think such things because they’re not all that bright themselves.

At any rate, I think science has only just begun to feel the wrath of those who would rather staunchly defend ignorance than consider new ideas and compelling evidence. This new chapter of science-busting will begin, I believe, with the fruit fly. Researchers, working at the Austrian Institute for Molecular Biology, havc found that they can change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by manipulating one gene. They can, in effect, make fruit flies even fruitier. Researchers watched as genetically-altered males fruit flies “turned their sexual attention to other males,” the New York Times reported recently. When the dormant male portion of this sex gene was activated in female fruit flies, they began courting other females using all the time-honored panoply of fruit fly mating rituals. The altered females engaged in these flirtations despite the fact that they lacked the male equipment to make good on their promises.They did it because their genes told them to.

The article did not say whether or not the genetically altered flies set about opening their own night clubs or petitioning the government for the right to marry, but did say that the impact of this study could be far-reaching:

Dr. Barry Dickson, researcher
"What this tells us is that instinctive behaviors can be specified by genetic programs…"

Although the research makes no claim as to whether the same is true for human sexual orientation, it does hold great promise in that regard. In the same article, Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the biochemistry department at Case Western Reserve University, said, “Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science.”

..and this is what makes the religious right unhappy. First of all, such scientific evidence-in a sort of academic “I told you so”- would verify what gays and lesbians have been saying forever-that they do not choose their sexual orientation. Also, it would make discriminating against them no only incredibly unfair, but unlawful as well. Society could no longer say that some people, due to genetic conditions beyond their control, did not deserve the same rights as everyone else. Even if “everyone else” thought that what “some people” do in the privacy of their own homes is icky.

I dare say, though, that if-or, more likely,when-scientists can say beyond all doubt that human sexual orientation is a result of our genetic mapping, there will be people who choose to believe otherwise. In a hundred years or so, we’ll look back upon them the same we now look back on people who believed the world was flat.

These naysayers are probably already clearing their throats in order to point out that there are a great many differences between humans and fruit flies, and that’s an entirely valid point. One of the biggest differences, which was pointed out by the very same Times article, is that fruit flies copulate for 20 minutes at a stretch-and that’s not counting foreplay. Few humans, past the age of 19, are capable of or desirous of such sustained sexual activity-unless they are on something.

Consider; the average life span of a fruit fly is 30 days, while the life expectancy of us humans averages 76 years. So, in human terms, 20 minutes of fruit fly copulation is equivalent to nearly 13 days dancing in the sheets, Without water or a bathroom break. Not only is that not possible, I can’t imagine it would be all that pleasant.

This brings me to one other way in which fruit flies and humans differ: we seem to obsess about sex much more than they do. After all, given that the female fruit fly can lay up to 1,200 eggs in her month-long life, they’ve got other things to think about. What’s more, the human obsession with sex is one of the major forces behind the moralizing, bigotry and hatred by the religious right. If they spent more time reading up on science, and less time pondering what homosexuals do in bed, we’d all probably be a lot happier

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Spoken like a true homophilic, fruit-fly envy-having, black athiest. (Did I cover all the bases?).

Excellent post; I'd be interested to see where the implications of this research taske us in the next 20 years. I don't think it'll take a hundred for th flat-earth effect to happen; science is moving too fast. We'll see it in our lifetime, as well as the reaction formations against the findings.

Best Regards,

Dave

 

[SFC JeffJ]

I'm surprised the mass media hasn't jumped on this story yet. No, wait, I'm not.

Jeff

 

[Matt]

At any rate, I think science has only just begun to feel the wrath of those who would rather staunchly defend ignorance than consider new ideas and compelling evidence. This new chapter of science-busting will begin, I believe, with the fruit fly. Researchers, working at the Austrian Institute for Molecular Biology, havc found that they can change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by manipulating one gene. They can, in effect, make fruit flies even fruitier. Researchers watched as genetically-altered males fruit flies “turned their sexual attention to other males,” the New York Times reported recently. When the dormant male portion of this sex gene was activated in female fruit flies, they began courting other females using all the time-honored panoply of fruit fly mating rituals. The altered females engaged in these flirtations despite the fact that they lacked the male equipment to make good on their promises.They did it because their genes told them to.

As much as I would like to think that this might lead to a coherent social adjustment based on rational thinking, this news isn't too new. Apparently fruit flies have been 'playing cowboy' since at least 1995.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=180572&postcount=90

 

[Monadnock]

What’s more, the human obsession with sex is one of the major forces behind the moralizing, bigotry and hatred by the religious right.

Sounds like you have some of your own hatred to deal with.

 

[elder999]

Sounds like you have some of your own hatred to deal with.

So what?

 

[Xue Sheng]

You may think I am making light of this by asking this question, but I assure you I am not.

You mention the religious right, how far right are you talking?

Depending on the degree that can go from opinionated religious to zealot/extremist to Terrorist.

 

[elder999]

You may think I am making light of this by asking this question, but I assure you I am not.

You mention the religious right, how far right are you talking?

Depending on the degree that can go from opinionated religious to zealot/extremist to Terrorist.

zealot/extremist generally-even more, though,chiefly the people who are, for the most part, currently running my country.....

 

[Xue Sheng]

First let me state I am not taking a political stance nor am I taking a religious one.

But how would you answer those you are saying are the religious right when they respond with "the term Religious Right involves stereotyping by leftwing political activists."

 

[elder999]

First let me state I am not taking a political stance nor am I taking a religious one.

But how would you answer those you are saying are the religious right when they respond with "the term Religious Right involves stereotyping by leftwing political activists."

Uh, that''s what they often call themselves......or, that it's another lie, like "liberal media."

http://www.cc.org/

http://www.christianvoiceonline.com/

they may disguise it with catch-words like "pro-faith," "pro-life," "pro-family" and most commonly call themselves "Christian conservatives," and I don't always disagree with them, politically, but they are making an effort-in my opinion-to turn this country into a Christian theocracy, promulgating the lie that we are a "Christian" nation, and they all too often use their faith to discriminate-they appear to me to be exclusive, rather than inclusive....

 

[Kacey]

This strikes me as quite odd, considering that the religious righties always seem to be certain that they-and they alone-know the truth about god, the universe and everything. You’d think that they’d welcome the application of objective, scientific principles to their centuries-old belief systems. Instead, they seem to fear that scientific inquiry holds the power to disprove them. These are generally the same people who think that the concepts of evolution and a creator are mutually exclusive. To me, these concepts are only mutually exclusive in the narrowest of minds.

That is because religious belief is not based on science, it is based on faith. I rarely quote movies, but I am including this piece from "Keeping the Faith", because it describes the concept better than I could:

And it's very important to understand the difference between religion and faith. Because faith is not about having the right answers. Faith is a feeling. Faith is a hunch, really. It's a hunch that there is something bigger connecting it all... connecting us all together. And that feeling, that hunch, is God.
from http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/k/keeping-the-faith-script-transcript.html
​

I think that’s sad, because, so far, science has been really useful behind eliminating the flimsy excuses behind much of the world’s moralizing, bigotry and hatred that comes from ignorance and fear of the unkown.

For centuries, science was used to prove things we now know are false - for example, 'the world is flat', and 'whites are smarter because they have a larger brain capacity' (a truly flawed study based on measuring the brain pans of deceased men using rice... it was later proven that the scientist had [supposedly unknowingly] shaken the skulls of the white men more, causing the rice to settle more, thus allowing more rice into the brain pan). Yes, science has managed to debunk some of these myths... but at the same time, many people live for their beliefs, and they do not want to have the faith-based truths on which they live their lives 'debunked' - because that would mean they were wrong, or worse, that their religion, from which they gain much, if not all, of their moral values, was wrong. The implications of this for many people are staggering, and not worth changing, because it would shake the roots of their personal worlds and values.

For example, no one still believes that a person in the throes of an epileptic fit is really being possessed by the devil, and hardly anyone still believes that a person’s intelligence is determined by the color of their skin.

Sadly, my experience shows that this is incorrect... many people still judge others by the color of their skin (think 'racial profiling'), or their clothing, or any one of a number of other externally-demonstrated preferences... and they judge their intelligence, their moral values, their worth as a person, based solely on appearance. If your experience is different, more power to the people you spend time with... but the news media are full of examples that show the opposite.

From "Gilead", in Ingathering, by Zenna Henderson:
"'All I can say is: remember that whatever you do, wherever you live, different is dead. You have to conform or-or die. But Peter, don't be ashamed. Don't ever be ashamed!'...'Be different!' she whispered. 'Be as different as you can. But don't let anyone see-don't let anyone know!'" pg.44

"I learned bitterly what Mother had told me. Different is dead-and one death is never enough. You die and die and die." pg 45
​

From a fiction story, certainly - but the concept remains the same. History is littered with people killing those who are different from themselves, and justifying by pointing to the difference and saying: "see, they are [evil/stupid/inhuman/unworthy/fill in other negative adjective here] because they don't [look/act/dress/eat/pray/etc.] like us." The reason and response may change - but the concept that different is wrong remains constant.

At any rate, I think science has only just begun to feel the wrath of those who would rather staunchly defend ignorance than consider new ideas and compelling evidence.

Science has been feeling the wrath of the rightfully ignorant as long as science has existed. How many great thinkers were villified (outcast from their society in any number of ways, up to and including death) for proposing scientific theories, thoroughly supported by verifiable evidence, that opposed religious doctrine? The list is extensive, and growing. Can you say 'stem cell research'?

I dare say, though, that if-or, more likely,when-scientists can say beyond all doubt that human sexual orientation is a result of our genetic mapping, there will be people who choose to believe otherwise. In a hundred years or so, we’ll look back upon them the same we now look back on people who believed the world was flat.

There are quite a few people who still do believe the world is flat - see http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm for details.

In the end, this debate rests on the difference between faith and science. Faith, by definition, is not scientific - it is a response based on emotion, and one which is often ingrained in people from a very young age (childhood training), during a very emotional time (a period of extreme stress followed by a religious conversion), or both. People who have incorporated such beliefs into their world view are not interested in science disproving (or even proving) the concepts their faith provides them - because faith is based on the mystique of believing in something beyond what can be seen in everyday life - and because accepting scientific proof, even scientific proof that supports their position, takes away from that faith.

 

[elder999]

In the dust storm kicked up by proponents of “Intelligent Design” over what should be taught in the public schools, the science of evolutionary biology—the Darwinian model of evolution—is dubbed as materialistic, reductionistic, and atheistic. The Intelligent Design advocates suggest that to be a Christian one must take a stand against Darwinism. According to them, to pursue scientific research under the principles of random variation and natural selection is un-Christian. So-called “theistic evolutionists” (a phrase actually coined by the creationists as a term of derision) are accused of selling out to the enemy.-Last year Pat Robertson basically told the town of Dover, PA. that they were going to hell for voting out a pro-intelligent design school board.

In turn much of the scientific establishment tries to assert that to be religious is like having a disease that quarantines a person against participation in science. To accuse someone of holding a religious view about evolution helps to defend the hegemony of the Darwinian model in the public schools. Why? Because science is not subject to First Amendment proscriptions, while religion is. So, if you label your opponents “religious,” you get the courts on your side.

The implication is that those who continue to believe in religious things are simply not smart enough to advance. When they become smart, they’ll drop their religion and join the scientific community.

Intelligent Design proponents and creationists insist that the Darwinists are blinded by their atheism so they cannot see the limitations and gaps in their theory. These advocates argue that the very existence of complexity contradicts the standard theory of evolution, which assumes that change occurred gradually, slowly, step by step. They say that a qualitative leap to a higher order of complexity must be acknowledged, and that only an appeal to a transcendent intelligent designer provides an adequate explanation. Without quite using the word “stupid,” intelligent design advocates suggest that insistence by Darwinists that natural selection suffices as an explanation shows at least a lack of open-mindedness.

What all of this leaves out is my group of friends and colleagues. I hang out with some so-called theistic evolutionists. Being scientists, we tend to think that most scientists are pretty smart. In fact, many of my colleagues are even evolutionary biologists. We are convinced that the neo-Darwinian model of random genetic variation combined with natural selection provides the most adequate explanation for the development of life forms.

But my friends and colleagues are also religious, mostly Christian but with some other faiths mixed in. We think religious people can be pretty smart too. What is so important and what gets missed too often when the media covers the evolution wars is this: To be a Christian/Creationist does not require that one be anti-Darwinian.

It’s very possible that one could embrace the science of the Darwinian tradition and also embrace, say, a Christian understanding of God at work in the natural world. I believe that the Creator has used the evolution of life over deep time to serve a divine purpose for creation. This requires distinguishing between the strictly scientific Darwinian model and the atheism and related ideologies that have frequently been associated with evolution. The science is solid.

Christian faith, as I understood it, seeks understanding, as St. Anselm put it. Historically, (and, yes, even if one examines the whole Galileo/Roman Catholic Church thing closely) Christians have fallen in love with science. Faith loves science. Today, the Christian faith demands that our schools teach the best science, and only the best science. To teach inferior science-which "Intelligent Design" pretty much is- is stupid and, yes, irreligious.

It has become, over time, sadly a case of the one side trying to use science to prove that their faith is not misplaced, and the other often decrying faith at all, because it can't be scientifically proven, when, after all, that's why it's called faith-one is a mtter of belief, and certain knowledge based only on that belief, and the other of knowledge based on data, facts, and proof of conjecture. It isn't the job-or at least it shouldn't be-of either one to support or be supported by the other.

 

[Hand Sword]

Studying fruit flies? Sounds like a total waste of money. It's as bad as the millions spent a year on the mating habits of geribals. Pork Barrel spending. I bet the money spent (millions) could've fed a small, starving, nation.

 

[Makalakumu]

I would say the crux of this debate rests on the fact that science is a superior way of knowing about the world. Faith, that is divergent from science (knowledge), will always be emphatically wrong in its attempts to explain the universe. This simple fact has made most religions obsolete...unless they begin to meld the teachings of science into their dogma. Scientivism. That is the combination of reason and faith.

 

[Carol]

I would say the crux of this debate rests on the fact that science is a superior way of knowing about the world. Faith, that is divergent from science (knowledge), will always be emphatically wrong in its attempts to explain the universe. This simple fact has made most religions obsolete...unless they begin to meld the teachings of science into their dogma. Scientivism. That is the combination of reason and faith.

Oh wow...I'm putting down my coffee because I'm wide awake now.

John, you are touching on something that I have never really understood. Please indulge me if I may, I have wanted to ask this of a scientist for a long time.

As you have a broad scientific background, with full respect, do you mind if I ask you if you really see a conflict between science and faith? Do you find that they must be mutually exclulsive? Please, stop me if I'm crossing a line that don't want crossed.

Looking forward to talking more with you.

 

[Makalakumu]

Both faith and science are mutable and dependent upon one's point of view. Yet, with science the best explanation can always be sought by looking at the evidence that justifies the theory. With faith, this is impossible...leading to a natural state of relativism.

Science brings us closer and closer to the truth, while "pure" faith ends in relativistic dead ends.

Unless, the two marry each other. Actually, "marriage" is a bad description because science would lead the way while faith follows. The candle of enlightenment is an apt metaphor because the light of reason leads us out of darkness.

I believe that we are at the end of a paradigm shift that started hundreds of years ago and is not reaching climax. Faith traditions that have not coupled themselves to the light of reason are increasingly being seen as obsolete or anachronistic. Meanwhile, they are doing everything in their power to maintain some claim of explanatory power on the universe.

This conflict can only have one winner, though. Our society is already far more dependent on science then it is on faith. It's only a matter of time. In the future, I predict that no faith will exist without scientific underpinnings. Those that we see without that, will go the way of the trilobite. The conflict we see now, is nothing but the kicking and screaming that accompanies all change.

It all started because science is a superior way of knowing about the world. Science revealed that faith could not even provide a glimpse of the objective truth. Faith MUST couple with science in order to survive in the hearts of humans.

 

[Carol]

Both faith and science are mutable and dependent upon one's point of view. Yet, with science the best explanation can always be sought by looking at the evidence that justifies the theory. With faith, this is impossible...leading to a natural state of relativism.

Science brings us closer and closer to the truth, while "pure" faith ends in relativistic dead ends.

Unless, the two marry each other. Actually, "marriage" is a bad description because science would lead the way while faith follows. The candle of enlightenment is an apt metaphor because the light of reason leads us out of darkness.

I believe that we are at the end of a paradigm shift that started hundreds of years ago and is not reaching climax. Faith traditions that have not coupled themselves to the light of reason are increasingly being seen as obsolete or anachronistic. Meanwhile, they are doing everything in their power to maintain some claim of explanatory power on the universe.

This conflict can only have one winner, though. Our society is already far more dependent on science then it is on faith. It's only a matter of time. In the future, I predict that no faith will exist without scientific underpinnings. Those that we see without that, will go the way of the trilobite. The conflict we see now, is nothing but the kicking and screaming that accompanies all change.

It all started because science is a superior way of knowing about the world. Science revealed that faith could not even provide a glimpse of the objective truth. Faith MUST couple with science in order to survive in the hearts of humans.

Very thought provoking response.


The conflict will only have one winner. For a moment that line didn't sit well with me, until I realized that........conficts in general only have one winner.

John, what do you think will win the conflict? Do you think it will be something extreme, such as science proving (or disproving) the existence of God? Or do you think it will be something softer such as a change in perception...the spiritual base erodes, or, scriptures are taken more as metaphores than as literal words?

 

[Makalakumu]

John, what do you think will win the conflict? Do you think it will be something extreme, such as science proving (or disproving) the existence of God? Or do you think it will be something softer such as a change in perception...the spiritual base erodes, or, scriptures are taken more as metaphores than as literal words?

Scriptures are already being taken as metaphors in order to align them with the findings of science. The fit isn't exact, however, and that presents a problem to these faith traditions. I think that we could easily see the holy books rewritten or entirely new, humanistic, religions emerge replacing the old ones. Since, proving or disproving the existence of a deity is impossible, I can see our concept of "god" as changing to something less anthropromorphic and more phycically constant. Perhaps as an embodiment of all the physical laws.

Here is an interesting twist...

Check out the Kardashev Scale

Kardashev scale is a general method of classifying how technologically advanced a civilization is, first proposed in 1964 by the Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev. It has three categories, based on the amount of usable energy a civilization has at its disposal and increasing logarithmically:

• Type I - A civilization that is able to harness all of the power available on a single planet, approximately 1016 W. The actual figure is quite variable; Earth specifically has an available power of 1.74×1017 W. Kardashev's original definition was 4x1012 W. (It was identified as a Technological level close(st) to the level presently attained on earth, "presently" meaning 1964.)
• Type II - A civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single star, approximately 1026 W. Again, this figure is variable; the Sun outputs approximately 3.86×1026 W. Kardashev's original definition was 4x1026 W.
• Type III - A civilization that is able to harness all of the power available from a single galaxy, approximately 1036 W. This figure is extremely variable, since galaxies vary widely in size. Kardashev's original definition was 4x1037 W.

All such civilizations are purely hypothetical at this point. However, the Kardashev scale is of use to SETI researchers, science fiction authors, and futurists as a theoretical framework.

We already have religions that use type III civilizations in order to explain the powers greater then us. Scientology, for instance, is based off of this.

Check out the story of Xenu. As incredible as it sounds, this is the basis for the religion...but when compared to other equally implausible religious explanations for the universe, it is definitely on par.

The exponential structure of the scale allows ready extrapolation to higher types. For example:

• Type IV: control of the energy output of a galactic supercluster; approximately 1046W.
• Type V: energy control over the entire universe; approximately 1056W. Such a civilization approaches or surpasses the limits of speculation based on current scientific understanding, and may not be possible. Frank J. Tipler's Omega point would presumably occupy this level.

Here we start to approach something that begins to resemble something approaching a deity. All of these levels suggest religions.

These extensions are mainly used in science fiction. They are not "official" and may differ from source to source. For example, some authors would class a "Type V" civilization as Type IV instead. Further examples of extensions of the scale follow:

• Type VI: Energy control over multiple universes; a power level that is technically infinite[citation needed]
  • The civilization may have gained the ability to alter physical laws across multiple universes
  • These civilizations can escape a dying universe, and thereby become eternal; it is possible that less advanced civilizations can do so as well.
• Type VII: Hypothetical status of a deity, able to create universes at will, using them as an energy source[citation needed]
  • An example in science fiction of beings with energy usages in the range of Type VII is in Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question.
• Type X: Hypothetical status of something above a deity, able to control and colonize Antimatter and dividing by Zero, thus creating the infinite zero drive.

Finally, we come to something that plausibly could be deific in most people will accept. I can see earthly religions changing in order to fit something like this concept.

 

[Carol]

This is going to take some time to digest

 

[DeLamar.J]

They seem to fear that scientific inquiry holds the power to disprove them.

Exactly! There is alot of money and control as long as a god fearing religions exist. When people start to become free thinkers, it will be hard to control them. Religion also allows Bush to wear that big good guy badge(cross)while he does what he wants. Being that the majority of americans are christains, he must also be one to get away with what he does. IMO he does not believe in god, he pretends to because it keeps the majority of the herd behind him. Even myself being an atheist, I still see the power of controlling the herd, and I would do the same in his position, as any strategist would.