Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Stretching is free will; a long neck, determinism

    1.0   In science, we can predict experimental outcomes only if we know all the variables

    We must begin by putting determinism and free will in their proper contexts. For example, we can predict the locations of
    inanimate objects that are not bound by free will if we have sufficient information. We can say that if the ball rolls rectilinearly
    down the inclined plane at 30 mph without any interference, it will end up at a distance x after y seconds. We cannot possibly
    know what the ball is going to do in reality between the time we let it go and the time it arrives. There could be an unexpected
    earthquake in the middle of the experiment and the ball never makes it. It doesn’t make it not because the calculation is wrong,
    but because the initial assumptions have been retroactively amended. The ball is no longer traveling at 30 mph or maybe it’s
    not traveling rectilinearly. The ball will reach the predicted location only  if all of the initial assumptions hold.


    2.0   Free will has to do with the living; determinism, with the inert

    On the other hand, we cannot predict behavior. We can make an intelligent guess regarding what a cat might do next, but we
    cannot guarantee that this is exactly what he will do. The reasons for this are that behavior is a qualitative as opposed to a
    quantitative parameter, and does not depend on the observer but on the observed. What variable are we going to use to
    depict a qualitative parameter such as love or fast or distance in an equation? What are the range of possibilities of a cat’s
    next actions?

    Hence, determinism and free will deal respectively with inanimate and living objects. Religion has incongruously associated
    determinism with living beings.


    3.0   It is irrational to attempt to predict an object that already exists: analysts confuse prediction
             with explanation

    Seen in this light, Mayr’s reasoning in his debate with Sagan is at best a bit awkward. When he ponders the question of Man’s
    unlikely reappearance, he is incongruously applying determinism to a living object and attempting to predict an object that
    already exists. He is attempting the absurd. It makes no sense to attempt to 'predict' a cow anymore than it is to 'explain' an
    extraterrestrial alien. If at all, we predict extraterrestrial morphology (future, unknown) and explain how cows came to be
    (history, known). Mayr’s reasoning flows in reverse.

    Lamarckian [1] circularity and paradox concerning free will and determinism has to do with this type of seemingly
    paradoxical reasoning. Actually, there is no paradox because one has nothing to do with or invalidate the other. When
    scientists extrapolate and conclude that the long neck of a giraffe was predictable they are referring to a physical object:

    " Evolution can be predicted in the short term from a knowledge of selection and
       inheritance. However, in the long term evolution is unpredictable because
       environments, which determine the directions and magnitudes of selection
       coefficients, fluctuate unpredictably...Geospiza fortis (medium ground finch)
       and Geospiza scandens (cactus finch) changed several times in body size
       and two beak traits"  [2]   

    Lamarckians talk not about behavior, what the giraffe does (e.g., stretching), but about this conspicuous thing the giraffe
    has that we call a neck.

    For example, let us assume that Lamarck is right and stretching is one of the factors responsible for long necks. The giraffe
    stretches its neck to reach the high leaves either out of whim or necessity. The result is that after several generations of
    passing ever longer necks from one generation to the other, giraffes have very long necks. Fine! But then we should put
    determinism and free will in the right context and not misconstrue the conclusions. In this scenario, stretching is free will
    (behavior). A long neck is determinism (object). We don’t ‘predict’ objects such as giraffe necks in Science. If we’re lucky,
    we 'explain' in retrospect how they came to be. We can at best explain why giraffes have long necks. We cannot predict
    that stretching will lead to a long neck.

    Hence, the problem with Mayr's reasoning is that he is really explaining in retrospect why Man has intelligence (past) and
    not really predicting anything (future). Ever since Popper came up with falsifiability as a scientific criterion, every moron
    in the establishment repeats the word like a zombie. In Science, we don't run experiments to prove theories. In Science,
    we explain what happened.

    Mayr confuses a thought experiment where he runs the entire movie of evolution in his head and concludes that there are
    simply too many variables to 'predict' that Man will invariably come out of the assembly line. So if we were to implement
    Popper, we should conclude that Mayr is wrong. We did come out of the assembly line! We are here! Mayr's 'prediction'
    is summarily falsified!

    If Mayr really wanted to 'predict,' as the members of the establishment claim they can do, he would take a Chihuahua and
    the process of evolution and foretell what this animal will look like in 2,000 years. For example, if Man was not in the cards,
    what would the hominid line evolved into instead? Can he 'predict' what primate would be walking the Earth in our place?
    Mayr is great at predicting the past. The question is whether he can predict the future.

    In Science, we don't do predictions! Predictions are the stuff of astrologers, palm readers, and ignorant mathematical
    physicists. It is this misconception about predictions in particular and falsifiability as a criterion of Science in general that
    leads people to reach the most ridiculous conclusions during discussions about evolution and extinction:

    " Consider this: the rise of the mammals was a direct result of the demise
       of the dinosaurs. The mammals moved into the ecological slots previously
       occupied by dinosaurs. Thus, if you restarted a new game of 'Life on Earth'
       and played it up through the Cretaceous period, only this time you flicked
       that comet out of its collision course with Earth, then the dinosaurs would
       not have been annihilated, and the mammals would not have gotten their
       big break, and guess where that leaves us? The evolution of man was not
       inevitable or even likely. It was just a lucky break that put us here." [3]

    It is the fanatical belief in predictions and falsifiability that most people around today ended up believing that an asteroid
    caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 03/03/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008