State of my Agnosticism

“Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them… His name was Charles Darwin,” writes biologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene. “Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth moves around the sun, but the full implications of Darwin’s revolution have yet to be widely realised…no doubt this will change in time”. One can sense a degree of hesitancy in Dawkins’ introduction above. Of course, this was ages before he became the now famous rock-the-boat atheist. The ultimate and proximate causation questions of our existence on this planet have occupied great minds throughout human history. From philosophers to preachers to potters.

In this strive to find out why and how we got here, human cultures had to find an ‘explanation’–and religion came in handy. It gave them consolation and comfort; fostered togetherness and (for the time being) satisfied their yearning to understand the reason for their existence. So you find religion ubiquitous in all human societies, from hunter-gatherer communities in the Amazon to bank executives in America. But religion does not really answer the ultimate and proximate questions of our existence; it is a time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility-provoking venture. So why do we stick to it?

How and Why are we here

For the past three or so months I have been involved in an SMS exchange over this topic with veteran journalist and founder of the Kampala Express online newspaper, Timothy Kalyegira. Kalyegira thinks Intelligent Design (I.D) gives a “more logically and scientifically clear picture than evolution” And goes on to conclude,

“As far as I’m able to see, at least as of February 2015, I believe that 1) the universe came about by intelligent design 2) there are certain mutations within species or life forms, but that mutation does not explain the origin of species, life, the material universe and the laws that hold it together.”

Thank God (#pun) for empirical science it is easy to tear apart Kalyegira’s argument so effortlessly.

One, that the universe came into existence by intelligent design: of course if there was an intelligent being who created all this universe and its complexity, then he himself would have to be even more complex–which would beg the question how he himself came into existence. The second point about mutations leading to the emergence of news species (speciation) might be harder to explain but it can equally be easily debunked. For this we resort to a very important tool in science–the scientific method. In empirical sciences, a scientist constructs hypotheses or theories and tests their validity against experience by observation and experiment.

Let’s imagine all your life you’ve grown up seeing white swans (indeed, most swans are white) and one day you set out to find if indeed your observation (that all swans are white) is true. You move around counting, for several hours or even days and all the swans you see are white. You conclude therefore that all swans are white. But your inference is only true to the extent that you have not yet found a black swan. So if this was your theory, it would be probable but not definitive. This is the problem with induction as a scientific method.

Karl Popper in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery introduces a more fool-proof method–deductive logic. “It must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience,” he says. In otherwords, we have to set up our theories or hypotheses for falsification just to prove their validity. By continuously exposing scientific theories to possible falsification we are able to ascertain the consistency of particular observations (e.g. the example given prior of the white swans) so as to allow for generalised inferences–what you might call laws. All scientific theories, including Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, have gone through this rigorous process. Darwin’s theory in this case has stood the test of time for 150 years now. It still remains the most credible, simple, and conclusive, at least as far as evolution is concerned. Indeed Theodosius Dobzhansky, another prominent biologist, would once remark that “Nothing in biology makes sense, except in light of evolution”.

Going back to our “problem” number two raised by Kalyegira, about mutations not explaining the origin of species: of course ‘mutations’ on their own wouldn’t explain the origin and diversity of species; Darwin’s theory can and, I am afraid, his (Kalyegira’s) intelligent design theory can’t because it fails the jump the first huddle–it cannot be falsified. And here is one place where all such religious arguments grind to a halt.

But that is not to say that religion is an entirely bad thing, it is not. Many religious organisations have built hospitals, donated food items to the starving, mediated conflicts, etc. I happen to have been born in a Catholic-run hospital (on Christmas day 23 years ago…it’s a very long story we shall return to later!); have received my education in schools established by the church…I could go on. But equally so we could find 1,001 evils caused (and advocated for) by religion.

The recent trekking of pilgrims (up to a million of them in number) from across Uganda and neighbouring countries to attend the martyrs day celebrations at Namugungo alongside the proposal by the church to construct a bottling plant for ‘holy’ water at the site where the martyrs were killed speaks of the Janus-headedness of religiosity. Why are people willing to march hundreds of miles, through the scorching sun, in the cold freezing night, amidst the rain, just to visit a site where 22 youthful rebels were killed for disobeying the king? Why not channel this time, effort and dedication to, say, agriculture? The way church lawns are kept neat in this country, you would be shocked it’s the same Uganda where KCCA flower beds are trampled day and night–despite the presence of sanctions against the same. Religion, therefore, seems to offer more to these believers than any other authority, including government. Otherwise, without obvious sanctions (you won’t go to jail if you didn’t pay your tithe!), why would people so religiously contribute to each and every church cause? Here is where religious zealots will invoke the “…man is incomplete and burdened with the Original sin” that his only salvation lies in belief in a deity. Which is of course barely half-true. Rather the answer seems to lie in evolutionary psychology, for a behaviour to survive and be passed on from one generation to another the genes for that behaviour must be favoured by the behaviour itself. So for religion to exist, despite it’s overwhelming costs (prayer can drain lots of time that would be put to better use in farming or siring children), the genes for proclivity to religiosity should benefit from their religious carrier’s way of life. And there’s examples that lay credence to this. If you had two hunter-gatherer groups fighting 5,000 years ago and one group’s deity promises them ‘eternal’ life if they died fighting for a just cause while the other group have no such deity, members of the first group are going to be more brazen in their attack and will be willing to take greater risks–which increases their chances of victory. Group two, with nothing (heavenly) to fight for will easily be decimated. In other words, you could conclude it is group selection that seems to favour a proclivity to religion.

Finally, I know religious debates are a fairly emotive subject in this country, and anything that borders on skepticism of one’s beliefs is termed as ‘sin’. However I bring up the subject because am increasingly getting worried. Worried by a trend that is happening in this part of the world, and on the African continent as a whole. There’s a growing pentecostal wind that has swept across the continent carrying with it a new brand of conservativism and excessive materialism cloaked in the new ‘prosperity’ gospel. You can see it in the vast number of University students and middle class Ugandans who flock to most of these churches on Sunday. Joining them are destitutes, the unemployed and others who believe, if only they prayed so hard and ‘sowed’ enough tithe, they can escape the shackles of unemployment, get visas to go to Europe or Asia for menial jobs. A recent Pew study shows that the population of the different religious groups will increase at a faster rate in sub-saharan Africa than anywhere else in the world, partly on account of our fast growing population. This increases potential for religious conflicts especially in places like Nigeria, amongst the predominantly Moslem north and Christian south. Uganda, although far from Nigeria’s religious boiling point, has lately seen pieces of legislation that are aimed at “entrenching morals” in society. Religious leaders are known to have openly advocated for the anti-homosexuality Act, the anti-pornography Act (under which a young woman was recently jailed for a racy music video). The minister for Ethics Simon Lokodo, a Catholic father, has been at the forefront of this morality campaign. Worse still, the parliament and executive have also, for political expediency or other reasons, jumped onto this morality train. Uganda, slowly but surely, seems to be turning into a theocracy, or so it seems. And this threatens our relatively secular life style and could be a hinderance towards scientific advancement. A recent publication showed that amongst minority students in the U.S. one of the major factors determining whether they took up studies in branches of science like evolutionary biology was religion. Minority communities had some of the lowest number of students taking up the subject. The communities were also the most religious. Science has suffered from an overreaching Catholic church before in the Middle Ages, curtailing its progress and keeping humanity in darkness for so long. We hope the same doesn’t happen in Africa today. Sadly, evidence points to the contrary.

Remarkably Simple Ideas…

It’s the end of yet another eventful week. Lately, I have been thinking of what topics to write about this week but could not seem to settle on one. So I decided we shall rumble on with whatever ideas have crossed my mind this week. And here they are:

Great ideas are remarkably simple…

It was that great biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky who, writing in “Evolution” (1977), said, “really great ideas in science are sometimes remarkably simple, so much that they occur to more than one person independently”. Indeed, this week (12 February to be precise) we marked what would have been the 206th birthday of possibly the greatest biologist to have ever lived, Charles Darwin. His remarkably simple idea of evolution by natural selection was indeed so simple that it had occurred (independently) to so many other naturalists, in fact going as far back as Empodocles in the 5th century B.C.

So basically the idea behind Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is that nature tends to favour those individuals who are “fit” and according them better chances of survival while the frail (“unfit”) are weeded out. My bias towards evolution aside, one thing we can take away from Darwin’s life is his rebelliousness. Having been born to a wealthy doctor father, he dropped out of what was then the most prestigious medical school in the world at the University of Edinburgh, sold most of his possessions and bought a ticket on HMS Beagle for a trip around the world. It was on this trip, while at a stop-over in the Galapagos islands that Darwin’s curiosity would drive him to formulate the now famous theory of evolution by natural selection.

It is such “rebelliousness” that I think our young generation is lacking. The next science breakthrough, it seems, is always outside that door of “comformism” – waiting to be unlocked. Examples abound of ideas that have been born out of such rebellious acts, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and the like come to mind. However, an environment has to exist for those “rebellious” non-comformists, in our universities, in industry, created by government. It can be a fall back plan, a safety net below which none is allowed to fall. The president mentioned this in passing at the opening of the NRM retreat in Kyankwanzi during the week, that government should avail for resources to basic research – the kind that, while requiring huge input, does not always guarantee returns. It is something I hope the government will address since I have waxed lyrical about the lack of funding for this critical sector (check here).

Music: Cultural vs Evolutionary origins

Music is one of those things that takes up most of my time lately (the others on the list could be, probably, books, social media and staying up late…staring at walls!). I shall mention for the umpteenth time that I believe Ed Sheeran is a better singer than Sam Smith, and that I can’t bring myself to understand how the latter picked up 4 grammies the other day. No disrespect to Sam Smith. He is a great talent, but with Thinking Out Loud, Don’t, Bloodstream, and many other hits I see no way Ed could be edged out. Anyways, enough of my tantrums. So this week, whilst still reeling from the shock of Sam Smith’s bagging of four grammies, I happened to land on a paper, “The Origins of Music in auditory scene analysis and the roles of evolution and culture in musical creation,” published early this month in the journal, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biology.

So all of us have had this experience with music – that ability of a song to transform you from sadness to happiness and vice versa; to convey messages to your loved ones miles away and to bring humans together for causes greater than our individual selves. So this universal “language”, what are its origins? It is a question scientists have pondered on for a long time leading to two prominent schools of thought, those who believe music is a cultural creation and the other group that believes its origin is evolutionary.

Each side has their pros and cons and the paper treads a thin line while arguing for and against either of the two schools of thought. First, what would explain the fact that it’s only humans of all species that produce music? Not even our closest cousins, the primates, have evolved this behaviour. What would explain this universal proclivity to respond emotionally to music?

From an evolutionary point of view, the paper argues that musical behaviour increases group social cohesion which leads to increased survival (this can be seen in the exploration of our traditional music and dances, both are social events and mark periods of both happiness and sorrow).

Another argument for the evolution of music would be that it signalled fitness during mate selection. Those with good music abilities (ladies, a soft voice and males, a deep one) are more likely to attract mates.

But then the evolutionary argument fails to explain the variety of musical styles and the rapidity of musical change (for example, every decade since the 80’s has been marked by a particular genre or style of music), which requires another alternative explanation: cultural creation. The paper argues that things like language and music have survived for long because they enrich us culturally and without these social-cultural forces, music would have died out. The use of music in rituals and social engagement (concerts, etc) lays credence to this argument. The paper concludes that both evolutionary adaptation and cultural creation could have played a role in the origins of music.

That however did not solve the argument (my earlier one) whether Sam Smith deserved the four grammies, and Ed Sheeran none.

Spaces to create

Quickly, I would find solace and reprieve in an exciting conversation I had with a friend at Makerere over tea. He is a lecturer at the same University and part of the discussion was about my “next move” after I’m done with school in May. Truth be told, I don’t know. Maybe I will go out there and “look for a job” or finally start that science website (which by the way am making progress on, watch the space!). I might consider a position at my current intern place (NCRI) or a position at the University, to teach at my department. All those are possibilities. But then I might as well drop all that…become a rebellious one. Okay, “rebel” in the academic sense. No guns.

I just feel like I have so little time to make such important decisions. Having already made a I-hope-I-don’t-regret-this decision to turn down a training opportunity in Israel, I guess I’ll need much time to make a more sober one.

And this, I think, is the dilemma that many recent graduates face. There is not much soft landing that is provided (in terms of internships, fellowships, attachments, etc) to them in that time of transition from the University to the world. We need to create “spaces” where brilliant young minds with various skills (IT, business, science, law, etc) can experiment with their ideas and while in these spaces they don’t have to worry about basics like accommodation, food or transport. You can have mentors attached to each group so they can help them work on their ideas, and these ideas don’t have to “work”. The very experience of freedom without having to worry about exams, tuition or rent can be a driver for innovation in these young people.

Fellowships have been around and once in a while brilliant young Ugandans are picked up by ivy leagues like Stanford, Yale, LSE and Harvard. I would love to see these folks (when they return from the fellowships) re-create the same experience back home. Such fellowships at Stanford produced the likes of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, that great Nigerian writer, and continue to nurture the talents of many young people around the world. Why can’t we have the same in Uganda?

Can we have a space where “rebels” like myself are allowed the freedom to think and try out ideas — ideas that may or may not work — without having to worry about looking for that elusive job opportunity and, once you have it, boringly monotonous eight-to-five schedules, five days a week?

I don’t need a job, but a space to create many…

Cited:
Trainor, L.J. (2015). The origins of music in auditory scene analysis and the roles of evolution and culture in musical creation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 370: 20140089.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0089

Evolution…Some ideas are far-fetched

“Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution…” were the words (and title of an essay) written by that famous Zoologist Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1973. Born in Nemirov, (part of the then Russian empire) in 1900, Dobzhansky is widely regarded as the founder of evolutionary genetics. And like all famous scientists (some say, all scientists), he had a knack for doing things out of curiosity; in his childhood, Dobzhansky would collect insects for fun and it is no wonder he would go on to do extensive genetic research on the Fruit-fly (Drosophilla melanogaster). 

Oh, sorry for the digression! My main reason for writing today is far from the person of Dobzhansky. I want us to begin a new conversation. A conversation about a subject, either because it is so hard or so controversial, that has been relegated to the fringes of our discussions. We seem to find more room on these pages to harangue about politics, economics, music, books and anything in between. But the mention of “evolution” evokes apprehension, suspicion and folks are quick to run to the hackneyed “you people think man descended from an ape?” question.

Well, for the record, man did not exactly descend from an ape. Or something of the kind. Or perhaps he did?

Such is what evolution has been reduced to, and evolutionists have been on the firing line so many times for being un-Godly, deluded and misleading the public. Nonetheless, evolutionists have done little to help their case. Replies to such attacks from religious groups have been countered by indifference and, in most cases, erudite dismissal. Names like Richard Dawkins and his “millitant atheist” cohort come to mind.

But evolution is not limited to proving or disproving if man really descended from a monkey or if the earth is 4 billion (against the Church’s claim that it is 6,000) years old. Evolution (and Biology for that matter) is so wonderful, poetic and enjoyable a subject that it should take front-page attention.

It is therefore not true that an interest in evolution is the precursor to atheism; neglect of God and a gate to the world of alcohol, drugs, and sexual grand larceny. Some of the world’s most famous scientists have managed to embrace evolution and religion. Darwin in fact delayed the publication of his famous book, On the Origin of Species, because the findings therein clashed with his own religious beliefs. Indeed the book itself roused so much debate in Britain and America then, that it is safe to say it was the most controversial publication of the 1800s.

The biggest, and most widely talked about, of all was the June 30,1860 Oxford evolution debate pitting on one side, Darwin’s friend and biologist Thomas Henry Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce of the Church of England on the other side. It was in the heat of the debate that Wilberforce asked Huxley, “do you claim your descent from a monkey through your grandfather or grandmother?” to which Huxley retorted: “I would rather have a monkey for an ancestor, than a man who uses his special gifts to obscure the truth”.

The Huxley-Wilberforce debate aroused attention to this new field of science and the 1900s saw a gradual acceptance of evolution by natural selection as a theory that could, more than any other, explain the origin of life. These debates would make a comeback in the early 70s, 80s and lately with the emergence of the “Intelligent Design” school of thought and Darwinists like Sir Richard Dawkins.

In short, a subject that many would consider boring has shown it is capable of rousing debate across all sections of society. And such debate is not limited to religious zealots and “rock-the-boat” evolutionists, but even among scientists; Zoologists and Paleontologists, even Physicists. The interesting arguments amongst all these groups are missed when we declare evolution hard or boring.

I want to take you on a journey into this uncharted territory – Evolution. I want you to discover with me that there’s a lot to life than politics and daily gossip on TV. That evolution can be captivating, simple and poetic. Join me!

Kwezi Tabaro.

This article is the first in a series that will appear on the website science.ug starting January 2015. We will attempt to explain scientific phenomena in a clear, concise and easy to understand way. We shall cover the areas of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, Philosophy and Natural history. Watch the space!