Beans not Bombs

Because I found the video close to April Fool's Day, I assumed that anyone using a jar of peanut butter to discredit evolution would be nothing more than a, well, nutty joke.  The video also would have been at home on Stephen Colbert's show.  Alas, so far as I can tell, the video is meant as a sombre educational exercise, and I'm not quite certain who should be more offended, the religious or the scientific [1].

The video opens with a man dismissing evolution as a "fairy tale," that cannot explain life from non-life.  From here we see a woman claiming that scientists continue to build their case on something that "rules out" anything else.  These two short scenes compress a great deal into a short space, and I think it's important to unpack each element.

First, when discussing "evolution," it is important to note that there are three large "domains" that attempt to explain life:  biogenesis (how life first emerges), macroevolution (how species and groups of species change and emerge), and microevolution (how individual species change within).  The video concerns itself ultimately only with biogenesis, and it is important to note that even if this part of evolutionary theory was ultimately discredited that macroevolution and microevolution themselves would hardly be changed.  A theory of the emergence of life does not have to account for how species emerge and change; and I suspect that Darwin himself, if asked about the various strands of his theory, would ultimately have admitted that the grounds for biogenesis were far more tentative than the other two strands.  This, I would guess, is precisely why the video goes after this aspect of evolution: they realize it is the most tentative and hypothetical branch of the theory, and they hope to bring the whole thing down by attacking this one aspect.

Second, although I might be wrong on this, I suspect that scientists would be more than willing to entertain intelligent design, or "theogenic" theory of the origins of life, if someone could figure out how to test and measure such a theory.  The idea that biogenesis is nothing but a "fairy tale" seems to suggest that the speakers are skeptical on the face of things, a value which is very highly regarded in science. And for good reason: skepticism, properly instituted, allows us to overturn bad science and develop theory that more closely approximates reality.  But they fail to make their skepticism (as I would guess scientists would ideally prefer and admire) universal:  skepticism must be expressed with all hypotheses that a person would like to believe are true.  What does not happen with these two individuals is an expression of skepticism with their own ideas; instead, they are advocating a dogmatic skepticism ("I believe that to be false, but my own ideas, equally unfounded, are immune to scrutiny") [2].

From here we move to the part of the video that gave this blog entry its name, where an evangelical Christian [3] uses a jar of peanut butter to convince people that evolution is false.  Here, the formula, matter plus energy occassionally equals life (my emphasis) is introduced.  We are asked, if this is true, why don't we ever find life (other than that introduced from the outside) in peanut butter?  It's because it isn't true, and we are told, and in fact, the food industry hinges on the fact that evolution doesn't work.

We should point out quickly that occassionally life does find its way into the peanut butter jar . . . or the spinach . . . or the carrot juice.  And so on.  Inadvertently, the video is encouraging its viewers to mystify what happens in food production, to ignore ecological thinking when considering our food.  How does e-coli end up in spinach if e-coli is plant material and e-coli usually infects animal foods?  Don't think too ecologically people.

But three points are more important this.  First, the matter plus energy sometimes equals life formula is simplified greatly in order to make the analogy between peanut butter and earth (see point two below).  Occassionally in particular is the "weasel word" introduced to make the formula more speciously plausible.  What isn't pointed out is that occassionally, when discussing earth, could be as seldom as once in a billion year historical period [4]. That's why the "billions of experiments" we perform with peanut butter don't account for much:  the earth was performing such "experiments" every second of every day that the sun shone, and only one of them needed to be successful.  But there is also weasellyness in the energy and matter parts of the equation:  in particular, we would expect the forms of energy and matter which would need to be present to be very similar to those that exist in the earliest forms of life (no doubt some kind of single celled organism).  I doubt that a jar of peanut butter comes very close to such a primordial ooze that consists of the matter and energy making up the first life forms. 

Second, the whole argument hinges on an analogy that is left implicit: Earth is like a jar of peanut butter.  That is, Earth is a sanitized, sealed-off, non-dynamic ecosystem, designed specifically not to allow the emergence of life. The problem is, the last time I checked, Earth was none of these things.  Peanut butter also isn't subject to the geological time periods that are necessary to explain evolution:  even the plastic that the peanut butter is encased in, rightly vilified by environmentalists, will degrade in a wink of the universe's eye.  (Or, more probably, a small fraction of the time it takes for the universe to wink.)

Third, the video closes with the announcer solemnly declaring that the food industry depends on evolution not being true.  Yet isn't it funny, if they count on there being no life being in their food, that occassionally some life does end up in there, and they hedge their bets by adding nutritious "flavourin's" such as MSG, sodium nitrate, and so on to their foods.  But, more to the point, if we remember the distinctions drawn between the three broad areas of evolutionary thought, the food industry is utterly dependent upon microevolution and has been for thousands of years, even before it was considered an "industry".  Once people figured out that taking seeds from big corn makes more big corn, that strong animals tend to give birth to strong animals, and so on, they made a point of operating as though evolution worked even if they had no idea how it worked.  We also have to face the issue of why big agricultural companies are willing to sink so much money into biotechnology if they think that evolution is false.  Apparently, God must reward Monsanto by spending money on "terminator seeds" because it is part of His divine plan.

I hope that it is not just scientists that would find the video offensive, but also the religious.  As Galileo said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use."  I think God is confident enough to handle evolution being true.

---------

[1] By all means, those who classify themselves as both religious and scientific should feel doubly insulted.

[2] Dogmatic skepticism fits very well with the kind of evidence that I've noticed intelligent design theorists are inclined to make:  they offer negative evidence of evolution (here is why evolution is false), but cannot offer any positive evidence of their own theory (here is why intelligent design theory is true).  The reason why negative evidence cannot itself constitute sufficient proof for the truth of intelligent design is because of the fallacy of false dilemma.  "Either evolution or intelligent design is true" (the implicit premise of the argument) ignores that a third theory could explain life on earth; hence, with only negative proof of evolution, we have no reason to accept intelligent design, but could just as easily justify looking for a third theory to explain the facts.

[3] I don't know how often members of other religions make these claims; I suspect they exist, but for whatever reasons (geography, accidents of media structure and power, history, etc.) I hear these claims far more often from people who identify as Christian.

[4] I suspect that life could have emerged this way more often, and probably did; there is no reason to suppose, following species evolution, that there were not "abortive attempts" with life that did not result in eventually producing more life.  Again, though, we are still dealing with geological time, and easily millions of years could have existed between such periods of abortive biogenesis.

On the Nation website, I found an interesting piece on the Internet's fuelling of our desires for fame, status, and popularity.  It dismisses the notion that the Internet is itself an instrument for positive change, something I felt was long overdue.  Time spent on the Internet is often not getting involved in a genuine sense.  "Political involvement" is much like writing a cheque to a political organization... a cheque for 0 dollars, or one dated the 32nd of January.

The article, however, suggests that the Internet is now a forum for people of little talent to vent their aspirations to being famous. Some of this follows interesting trends, such as the following:

"A 2000 Interprise poll revealed that 50 percent of kids under 12 believe that becoming famous is part of the American Dream. It's a dream increasingly shared by the rest of the world, as revealed in a recent survey of British children between 5 and 10, who most frequently picked being famous as the "very best thing in the world." The views of these young children are no different from American college freshmen, who, according to a 2004 survey, most want to be an "actor or entertainer."

Also: 

"Not only do Americans increasingly want to be famous, but they also believe they will be famous, more so than any previous generation. A Harris poll conducted in 2000 found that 44 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 24 believed it was at least somewhat likely that they would be famous for a short period. Those in their late twenties were even more optimistic: Six in ten expected that they would be well-known, if only briefly, sometime in their lives. The rosy predictions of our destiny, however, contain within them the darker conviction that a life led outside the spotlight would be without value."

I find this trend even more interesting, however, because it predates the wide availability of the Internet:

"In the 1950s, only 12 percent of teenagers between 12 and 14 agreed with the statement, "I am an important person." By the late 1980s, the number had reached an astounding 80 percent, an upward trajectory that shows no sign of reversing."

While the spike in narcissism seems to correlate very well with people's antics on the Internet, particularly on YouTube and faux-philosopher or angst-ridden blogs**, the timing of the second trend makes me wonder if something more isn't involved.  This is the era that saw the world fall into a long term slump after the energy crisis, and that gave us Reaganomics and Maggie Thatcher.  In short, neo-liberalism had arrived.  I would like to suggest that the turn in popularity and narcissism might be explained partly by people's need to shield themselves from the very real and degrading effects of neo-liberalism on the workforce, on unions, and other associations that gave people meaning; believing that one is important and can be popular might well be a shield from the corrosive effects that people feel they can do little about.  The idea that anyone can become famous also might be connected to other issues: our belief in upward mobility, a lack of genuine democratic participation for most people, perhaps disconnectedness (as highlighted by Robert Putnam in his book Bowling Alone), and (this is a stretch) a lack of attention to spiritual/existential questions of existence, as fame often exists past one's death, avoiding the question of meaninglessness of life conferred by death, and providing an external show of salvation (rather than the "internal" one expected to wait for one upon one's death, as is dictated by monotheistic religions). 

What I thought was the most troublesome aspect of the article was its conclusion. The author optimistically posits an end to the obsession with 'net fame under the following conditions:

"If these corporate technologies of self-promotion work as well as promised, they may finally render fame meaningless. If everyone is onstage, there will be no one left in the audience. And maybe then we rock stars can finally turn our attention to life down here on earth. Or it may be life on earth that finally jolts us out of our admiring reverie in the mirrored hall of fame. We forget that this growing self-involvement is a luxury afforded to a generation that has not experienced a wide-scale war or economic depression. If and when the good times come to an end, so may our obsession with fame."

There is a far more pessimisitic way to look at it.  Rather than abandon the medium en masse, people may perceive their eroding "Internet capital" as reason to invest even more in it, deflating its value while hoping in the scramble that he or she will be the one left holding all the money (even highly depreciated currency is worthwhile if one can hold enough of it).  This kind of irrational behaviour will be sustained particularly in a situation where a few people make it.   Similarly, a jolting experience in the world at large might not shake up people's narcissism, but instead exascerbate it further.  (Indeed, if you can even make the case that the world is not "shook up" right now, you are not paying attention.)

------

**"I am aware of the irony of appearing on television in order to decry it, so don't bother pointing that out," Sideshow Bob says on The Simpsons in an episode where he forces the town to shut down the medium on the belief he has a working atomic bomb.  Writing this blog, however, I try to keep its original purpose in mind: to give me a forum for practicing my writing, and to record thoughts that might be burdensome to share in a conversation for my friends to ponder over.