Transterrestrial Musings

« "An Angry Technology" | Main | They Haven't All Forgotten »

Circumstantial Theories

Ann Coulter has an amusing column in which she shreds Bob Shrum, the architect of perennial losing demagogic political campaigns, and Mark Geragos. Like her, I'm amazed that the guy can even get clients, let alone charge them millions of dollars, given his record. The only winning case of his that I can think of is Susan McDougal vs. the Mehtas.

But she makes an interesting point that many people don't understand:

...even Geragos and Sherman would never sneeringly dismiss evidence in a murder trial as "circumstantial evidence." Only nonlawyers who imagine they are learning about law from "Court TV" think "circumstantial evidence" means "paltry evidence." After leaping for the channel clicker for six months whenever the name "Scott Peterson" wafted from the television (on the grounds that in a country of 300 million people, some men will kill their wives), I offer this as my sole contribution to the endless national discussion.
In a murder case, all evidence of guilt other than eyewitness testimony is "circumstantial." Inasmuch as most murders do not occur at Grand Central Terminal during rush hour, it is not an uncommon occurrence to have murder convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is "circumstantial evidence." Fingerprints are "circumstantial evidence." An eyewitness account of the perpetrator fleeing the scene of a stabbing with a bloody knife is "circumstantial evidence." Please stop referring to "circumstantial evidence" as if it doesn't count. There's a name for people who take a dim view of circumstantial evidence because they don't understand the concept of circumstantial evidence: They're called "O.J. jurors."

It occured to me as I read this that "circumstantial evidence" is to the legal world what "theory" is to the scientific. The most reliable evidence, far more than eyewitness testimony, is circumstantial, and theories are the stuff that science is made of, but one would never know that to hear them denigrated by creationists. In fact, the evolution debate is a perfect example of exactly what Coulter is describing here, in which the circumstantial evidence for evolution via natural selection is overwhelming, but much of the nation are OJ jurors, because no one has caught a dog in the act of having kittens.

Just as few murders occur, as she says, during rush hour in Grand Central, the vast majority of the fossil record is lost to us as well (though there's enough to see "transition species," since all species are transition species). But since that's only "circumstantial evidence" of something that's only a "theory," it's unlikely that we will ever find enough evidence to satisfy people who don't even understand how science works, or want to. And in light of that, here is a brave and admirable man.

Colling... finds a place for God in evolution by positing a “random designer” who harnesses the laws of nature he created. “What the designer designed is the random-design process,” or Darwinian evolution, Colling says. “God devised these natural laws and uses evolution to accomplish his goals.” God is not in there with a divine screwdriver and spare parts every time a new species or a biological structure appears.
Unlike those who see evolution as an assault on faith, Colling finds it strengthens his own. “A God who can harness the laws of randomness and chaos, and create beauty and wonder and all of these marvelous structures, is a lot more creative than fundamentalists give him credit for,” he said. Creating the laws of physics and chemistry that, over eons, coaxed life from non-living molecules is something he finds as awe inspiring as the idea that God instantly and supernaturally created life from nonlife.

Though I'm a skeptic when it comes to God, I find it more so.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 19, 2004 05:53 AM

Comments

I'll add one tiny thing.. a dog turning into cat would not be evolution, but devolution.

My dog appears at http://www.milathedog.com.

Posted by Mitchell Burnside Clapp at December 19, 2004 07:22 AM

Your dog has its own web site?

And I thought my cat was spoiled...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 19, 2004 07:41 AM

By the way, regardless of one's opinions about the relative merits of cats and dogs, I'll assume that you know this, but for the purpose of the readership, "devolution" has no useful meaning, at least scientifically...

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 19, 2004 07:42 AM

"Are we not men? We are Devo!"

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 19, 2004 12:26 PM

Ahh, but we've seen devolution in action... Just look at the Democratic Party over the last 60 or so years.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at December 19, 2004 12:41 PM

Eric S - Ouch! (But unfortunately true)

I've never been able to understand the claim that accepting evolution implies rejecting the idea of a diety.

I think the problem is that humans have always given their gods human qualities (the Greek gods, for example, were notoriously human in their behavior, but the Old Testament god also had human failings - the need to be number one, the need to be worshipped, etc.). Therefore many people can't conceive of a god with no human failings. Since most people can't resist interferring with other people's lives, they think their diety can't either.

I, on the other hand, think that is exactly what an all-wise, omniponent, perfect diety would do: Set that first atom spinning and stand back and let whatever happened, happen. So evolution and a diety can easily go hand in hand, in my view.

Of course, a lot of people aren't secure in their faith....

(And no, I'm not Christian. Or Jewish.)

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at December 19, 2004 04:36 PM

I've never been able to understand the claim that accepting evolution implies rejecting the idea of a diety.

Guilt by association.

Keep in mind that "evolution" (at least biologically) refers to two theoretical phenomena: evolution from one species to another, and evolution from non-life to life. Most who believe in the first also believe in the second, although there is a hypothetical "first life forms created, the rest evolved" alternative. It's the second form that challenges the existence of the supernatural - and not just to creationists. The more vocal evolutionists tend to be atheists, and some believe that evolution, esp. the second variety, disproves the existence of the supernatural. Don't ask me to explain their rationale.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at December 20, 2004 12:55 AM

> Keep in mind that "evolution" (at least biologically) refers to two theoretical phenomena: evolution from one species to another, and evolution from non-life to life.

"Evolution" (at least biological) refers purely to changes in the gene frequencies of populations over time. That is an observed Fact. There are many theories of evolution from Natural, Sexual and other forms of selection - in reality there are probably many many different mechanisms some which work slowly and others which work faster. We have, in many cases observed speciation in action and there's literally bucket loads of transisitional fossils to support other aspects of the theory. There's no need to invoke design, god or anything else for this, there really isn't.

"Evolution" from non-life is generally called Abiogenesis and has nothing to do with what is commonly thought of as evolutionary theory.

Conflating these two gets people into conceptual difficulties and is best avoided. Carl Zimmer's excellent Blog "The Loom" regularly covers the distinctions here.

My $0.02 - I still don't see a problem with a naturalist explanation for abiogenesis either. Fred Hoyle's maths is highly wonky in his probability analysis and a basic RNA replicator forming in chemical sorting actually doesn't take all that long.

Posted by Daveon at December 20, 2004 04:45 AM

I don't think it's "evolution" itself that bothers those who believe in a deity (we'll call them "Believers" with a capital B). Most Believers would agree that most (if not all) species are in transition. Certain fundamentalists Believers would probably not grant that, but they are not the majority of Believers. But the backbone of modern evolutionary thought is a combination of two theoretical constructs--Natural Selection (NS) and Random Mutation (RM). And it is the second that bothers most of the Believers. As with Abiogenesis, it suggests that life, and all of the transitions within life are completely accidential. It argues that design has no place in the original creation of life or any of its transitions. This may or may not be a mistaken belief on their part. It's debatable. But what cannot be debated, is that a sterile system of accidental transition is in direct conflict with the idea of a loving, caring, involved deity.

I'm kind of neutral in the debate, but I do detect maybe a pinch of intellectual laziness with regard to belief in theoretical RM. While it may be that mutations are merely the result of a species' exposure to certain random environmental events, it may also be that there are patterns of mutation that occur over and over again. It would be interesting to study that.

Posted by kayawanee at December 20, 2004 08:24 AM

That's always the Creationists' opening salvo: "Evolution is just a theory." My usual response is, "Does Newton's Theory of Gravitation imply that gravity is just a theory?" A theory is an atempt to explain an observable phenomenon. Gravity is an easily demonstrable fact and Newton's Theory of Gravitation was his attempt to explain the mechanism behind this observable fact.

Evolution isn't as easy to demonstrate as dropping a hammer but it is demonstrable. The fossil record, the nature of the differences in genetic material between related species, the visible change in physical attributes of bacteria placed in harsh conditions and forced to adapt, etc. Evolution is a fact. Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his attempt to explain the mechanism behind these changes over time with the idea of natural selection.

By the way, if you get in an argument with a creationist be sure to refer to what they believe as the Theory of Creationism. They hate that.

Posted by Kelly Parks at December 20, 2004 12:24 PM

Kelly,

From your quote... "the visible change in physical attributes of bacteria placed in harsh conditions and forced to adapt, etc. Evolution is a fact."

I'm not familiar with that experiment, and I may just be misinterpreting what your saying, but I hope you're not suggesting that a physical response to environmental difficult situations can be passed genetically. That sounds like the old LeMarkian theories that were discredited around Darwin's time.

I think the bacteria experiment suggested that "Natural Selection" could be demonstrated in a lab. ie bacteria that don't have the traits that enable them to survive in a hostile environment are killed off, while those that do have them survive.

The question is, how did they get those traits in the first place? As I explained in a previous post, Random Mutuation is the naturalist's answer. Unfortunately, while it does fit the "life as pure accident" paradigm, it is is far more difficult to demonstrate than our Natural Selection bacterial experiment above. It may be completely random (animal colony exposed to some environmental factor that alters the DNA), or it may be part of a repeatable pattern in DNA replication and we haven't yet discovered.

Posted by kayawanee at December 20, 2004 01:28 PM

"Does Newton's Theory of Gravitation imply that gravity is just a theory?"

No, it isn't a theory Kelly, its a fundamental law!

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 20, 2004 03:25 PM

In response to the two previous posts:

Kayawanee, the experiments with bacteria I described do not represent anything Lamarkian. They are simple, direct examples of natural selection. There is also no need to invoke random mutation (and no need to capitalize "random mutation"). The basis for natural selection is the variation found in any group of individuals. Tall, short, fat, thin, smart, not-so-smart. As environmental conditions change some of those variations (mostly biochemical in the case of bacteria) give those individuals an edge in surviving the new conditions and thus a better chance of passing the genes for those variations on to the next generation.

In the bacteria experiment a colony is placed in a chemically harsh environment. Most die but some hardy individuals have the right stuff and survive. After many generations you have a new strain of bacteria that thrives under what used to be near fatal environmental conditions. No random mutation required. Actual evoltionary biology is more complex (see anything by Stephen Jay Gould) but this is the basic idea.

Finally, to Mike Puckett: Yes, I know gravity is a fundamental law. That was the point. You'd never assume Newton's Theory of Gravitation implied gravity is just a theory, so why assume Darwin's Theory of Evolution implies that evolution is just a theory? Hence the irony. Get it, Mike?

Posted by Kelly at December 21, 2004 12:25 AM

Well, gravity is, of course, like all scientific theories, "just a theory." But like evolution, it's the best one we have that matches the data.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 21, 2004 04:34 AM

I beg to differ, Rand. Gravity is an observable fact (drop a hammer on your toe if you doubt me). There's nothing theoretical about it. It's easily demonstrable. Newton's Theory of Gravity (and later, Einstein's Theory of Gravity) were attempts to explain the mechanism behind gravity, not to prove gravity's existence. There was no need for that.

Posted by Kelly at December 21, 2004 11:47 AM

No, gravity is a theory to explain the phenomenon that when a hammer is released, it falls. Aristotle had a different theory to explain it, and Newton's theory turned out to be better, and Einstein's better yet. But they are all theories. The only thing that is a fact is that things fall, but that's not gravity, it's just an observed phenomenon.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 21, 2004 12:18 PM

We're not quite on the same page yet. Gravity is not a theory -- it is our name for the observed phenomenon of things falling when we let go of them. That they do fall is fact, not theory and gravity is our name for that fact.

Various learned gentlemen have tried to explain exactly why gravity exists or how it works but the fact that it does exist is a given. The idea that gravity is *caused* by matter warping space is a theory but gravity itself is not.

Posted by Kelly Parks at December 21, 2004 03:55 PM

We're not quite on the same page yet.

Apparently not.

Gravity is not a theory

Sorry, it is.

it is our name for the observed phenomenon of things falling when we let go of them.

No, we have no name for that, as far as I know. But "gravity" didn't become associated with that phenomenon until Newton invented the theory. Further posts on this subject are unlikely to alter my opinion (and that of most physicists, AFAIK) in this matter.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 21, 2004 05:51 PM

Awww, c'mon, Rand. Don't get all "this discussion is closed" on me. Instead, please state for me anyone's Theory of Gravity that declares gravity exists rather than takes as a given that gravity exists and proceeds to propose rules for its operation. Gravity is not a theory -- proposals claiming to explain how and why gravity works are theories.

Posted by Kelly at December 21, 2004 07:11 PM

Awww, c'mon, Rand. Don't get all "this discussion is closed" on me.

Sorry, but that's the way it is until you come up with a convincing argument or cite to persuade me otherwise. Simply repeating things that aren't so isn't very compelling.

Gravity is the prevailing theory that explains why things fall (and the motion of the planets and other bodies) and it was invented by Newton, and refined since by others. I'm not aware of any single word that describes either of those classes of phenomena.

If you insist on purloining the word "gravity" to describe them (and both of them, bearing in mind that one of the great breakthroughs of Newton was to show that they were related, something that no one previously had understood), then it's incumbent on you to come up with some other word that describes the theory. I don't think that you, or anyone, is up to it, given the vast usage over the past half a millennium.

This isn't Humpty Dumpty land. Words don't mean whatever you want them to mean.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 21, 2004 07:22 PM

Rand/Kelly,

How about this...you're both right!

It's silly to get caught up in this semantic game. We can observe a force of attraction between objects that have mass. We call it gravity. We can also write mathematical formulae to predict the force of attraction. We also call that gravity. We could call both of them "F***ing Falling Syndrome" if that makes you any happier. But we observe this reality, make suppositions about it, and experiment with it. And because we have a pretty firm grasp of its effects and can predict certain outcomes, many refer to it as a law.

But what about evolution? We know a lot about the various transitions, but experimation is quite difficult, and whether we can make accurate predictions with regard to it are questionable. We theorize that natural selection and random mutation are the driving forces behind these transitions, however demonstration is a little more difficult than demonstrating gravity. There are far more variables involved. And so most people refer to it as a theory.

Posted by kayawanee at December 22, 2004 06:21 AM

Sorry, but all scientific theories are theories, including gravity. It is a fact that masses seem to be attracted to each other, just as the fossil record and DNA structure are facts, but the explanations for these bodies of facts are both theories (Einsteinian gravity being the best one for the former, and evolution by natural selection being the best for the latter). One may be a little better founded than the other, but that's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 22, 2004 07:35 AM

Yes, explaining *why* things fall. The fact that they do fall is not in dispute. That's been my point from the beginning. Newton invented the theory (mathematically defining the mechanism and pointing out that the same force that makes things fall here on Earth also held the moon in orbit). He did not invent the word.

The word "gravity" comes from the latin "gravitas" which means "heaviness". So Newton's writings could just as easily have been translated as the Theory of Heaviness. If they had, would we be having this discussion? Would you be arguing that "heaviness is just a theory"? Then and now, it is an observable fact that things are heavy. Newton's theory was an attempt to explain why things are heavy. As I've said from the beginning: a theory is an attempt to explain an observable fact.

I didn't purloin the word, Rand. I used it quite properly.

Posted by Kelly at December 22, 2004 08:51 AM

No, he didn't invent the word, but he did invent that usage for it, and attached it to his theory. Prior to his theory (which was a unifying one), no one had ever applied it to the motion of the planets. The fact remains that there is no word to describe the collective phenomena of masses attracting each other. There is only a word for the theory that explains and describes it quantitatively.

When you use the word for the theory to describe the fact of the phenomena, you blur the meaning of both "theory" and "fact," and contribute to the confusion that allows creationists to thrive.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 22, 2004 08:57 AM

"Gravity is not a theory"
"Sorry, it is."

Bzzt. Please answer in the form of a question.

Step back and you can see the problem. Gravity is a word and like all words has semantic ambiguities. Forgive me Rand, but you are hung up on a semantic linkage you've made between Gravity and the 'Theory of Thing.' Thing already being semantically linked to an observation. This is difficult to see once heals have been dug in... a common problem on both sides of the evolution debate.

The main point I agree with completely (assuming the main point is that it is reasonable to believe that if God exists he may use evolution as a mechanism.) Personally, I have never seen God as a magician. God simply has the wisdom and power that we do not possess, but there is no theoretical reason (although many practical) why we could not attain such. Moses recorded as much himself when quoting God regarding the tower of Babel.

Posted by at December 22, 2004 09:16 AM

Sorry for the anon post. The quote I was refering to is found at Gen 11:6

Posted by Ken Anthony at December 22, 2004 09:22 AM

Yes, Newton is the guy who first connected the idea that the same thing that made objects heavy also caused the planets to move in their orbits. He said that the well known force of gravity was the same force holding the solar system together. In other words he connected the fact that things are heavy and the fact that the planets orbit the sun together into one all encompassing extension of the existing concept of gravitas (heaviness). His theory of gravity is his attempt to explain and unite those two observable facts.

Now on to our next important discussion. I claim it is obvious to any trained observer that 4,218 angels can dance on the head of a pin. What say you, sir?

Posted by Kelly Parks at December 22, 2004 10:01 AM

Post a comment