We Finally Know Why Men Exist!

According to recent discoveries outlined in the Telegraph males like myself are here to "help purge negative and maintain positive genetic variation in a population."  So there you have it.

For a long time, biologists have been confused at the continued existence of males.  Given that males do not themselves reproduce it is a wasteful drain on the species to produce them in 50% of the population. It would be much more sensible "in evolutionary terms to have an all-female asexual population which creates daughters who can reproduce rather than sons who cannot, such as the Mexican Whiptail Lizard."

So in as much as males do exist and evolution has not selected us out the assumption is that there must be a good reason for it.  Why this same reasoning doesn't apply to that Mexican Lizard is not mentioned.  The entire edifice of Darwinian theory rests on the assumption that there are limited resources that all species are in a perpetual death struggle to procure.  The ones with the benefit of a useful, random mutation (though mutations are almost always non-beneficial) will be incrementally better at accessing those resources - thus thriving and passing on that beneficial trait to their progeny.

There are questions to be asked regarding these assumptions:

1. Why do species "care" about survival in the first place?  Why couldn't "nature" have randomly started with a death wish or with no motivation of any sort?
2. Why has evolution selected celibacy, voluntary army service, abortion and other practices that limit the population (the supposed motivating drive of all species)? 
3. Where did the information come from for the radically different designs of males and females - can the steps be explained?
4. What process generated the information that allows males and females to "work" together to reproduce?
5. Is it presumable that the reproductive system would have to work perfectly from the beginning?  What accounts for this perfection?  If it developed over time, how did reproduction occur at earlier stages?

There is another way of looking at all of this - that males and females were created by a conscious designer - one who was aware of all of the benefits (including biological, sociological, spiritual) of having more than one gender.  This conscious agent would also be capable of executing on the design from the get go so that no risky "random" mutating would be responsible for generating the staggering amount of specified functional information that is required for even the simplest organism to live and reproduce.

"What is man that you should remember him and the son of mortal man that you should be mindful of him?  Yet you have made him but slightly less than the angels and crowned him with soul and splendor."  

Tehillim (Psalm) 8:5-6

Bias Is a Two-Way Street

A post of mine was recently critiqued as essentially an exercise in wishful thinking.  I had been bothered by the seeming disappearance (or even lack of existence) of the "Paleo-Hebrew" script that we are now all familiar with in the course of Jewish history.  Given that much of Kabbalistic thought is built off of those letters, the idea that they were introduced in the time of Ezra (many centuries later than the Jewish tradition suggests) is potentially troubling to a theist like myself.  After doing some research, I came up with an answer that satisfied me and found a similar approach discussed on a blog called Aish Das.

The blogger known as the "Atheodox Jew" begs to differ.  His contention is that in the same way that hokey alternative medicine practices such as the "dowsing rod" (which he believes the practitioner subconsciously moves in accord with his wishes) are merely the result of below the surface bias - so too is the belief that there was an original Hebrew alphabet that was carefully preserved over time and only introduced to the masses later in Jewish history.

Fine.  This contention can be argued and approached from a variety of historical, archaeological and philosophical perspectives.  What I find irksome about the contention is the (all too common) self-congratulatory style with which many "free-thinkers" conduct their thought.  While leveling the charge of hopeless and wanton bias at the believer, the skeptic often seems wholly unaware of the bias and unsubstantiated assumptions with which he draws his conclusions.

For instance, Atheodox Jew writes that "Billions of years of evolution have imbued us with a formidable intuitive capacity, i.e. the ability to make spot assessments of circumstances, to sense things about ourselves and our environment, in order to take the kinds of actions that will help us survive."  As popular as this belief may be, it is simply an assumption.  There is no formal proof that this is the case, there is no model by which to test it and furthermore, it oftentimes seems that human beings are actually quite deficient in this capacity to begin with.

Though they don't like to explore it much, the history of science and "free-thinking" is littered with egregious examples of gross bias and group-think.  Yoram Bogacz offers a stunning example of this phenomenon in his book Genesis and Genes whereby the entire scientific community concluded that the age of the Earth was 100 million years - largely due to the great influence of Lord Kelvin.  Here were the results:

By the end of the 19th century, there was an entrenched, virtually  indisputable scientific consensus that the Earth and the Sun (and thus the universe)  were at most 100 million years old...the paradigm was pervasive and considered unassailable [much like today's views of evolution].  It was the consequence of fifty years of determined scientific effort, involving dozens of researchers  in multiple disciplines.  This result was repeated in countless books, monographs, journals, symposia, lectures and articles in popular magazines and newspapers.  Virtually all scientists and educated members of the public were convinced of the veracity of the paradigm.  It was almost inconceivable that results from such apparently-independent methodologies, drawn from such a wide array of disciplines and produced by the application of the most advanced tools of science could converge to such a narrow limit coincidentally.

Today it has been totally discarded.  

Despite this obvious truth about people - all people - Atheodox Jew goes on to make various assumptions that he finds meaningful  - about cosmology, and about linguistics.  On the latter, he cites a paper by UCLA professor William Schniedewind on the apparent evolution of the Hebrew letters in question.  In response I'd like to share a salient quote from Professor Schniedewind himself where he correctly affirms that "the assessment of the evidence here - and in other cases - depends quite a bit on the assumptions that we bring to the linguistic data."  (How the Bible Became a Book, P.179)  Indeed.

I once had the pleasure of meeting with psychoanalyst and physicist Dr. Jeffrey Satinover.  Over coffee I asked him how I (as a layman) could make sense of the fact that there are credible paleontologists who draw completely opposing conclusions regarding the fossil record - some seeing it as proof positive of the Darwinian theory and others as a refutation of it!  He made a fascinating assertion to me - that the position of the scientists were not scientific but rather emotional.  Each side viewed the data through the lens of his bias and drew the conclusion he most wanted - same data, opposite conclusion.

Everyone is convinced the he or she is a "free-thinker" and that their beliefs are solely the product of rigorous logic and rationality but we would probably all benefit from a frank admission that we are all blinded by one bias or another.