Saturday, April 25, 2009
We the People
Jeremy Mohn at the excellent stand up for REAL science has a response to Jerry Coyne's latest post against "accomodationism" that I largely agree with. I see no reason that the NAS, NCSE and other science organizations shouldn't counter the propaganda, largely from the Religious Right but also from some atheists, that science and religious belief are necessarily incompatible. Such statements by scientific organizations seem to me to be nothing more than acknowledging an empiric fact of the world that is not obviated by the fact that Coyne does not understand how some people are capable of doing it or because the means they use to do so do not meet Coyne's personal standards of how theology "should" be done.The extent that such organizations should go in acknowledging this fact is, of course, a matter of fair debate and I must say that some of the examples of biblical exegesis Coyne points to at the NCSE site seem to me to be of questionable appropriateness for a science organization.
One of the complaints made by Coyne and others is that the "accomodationist" program is not working, based on the polls that show that the acceptance of evolution has remained stable over the last 60 years or so. But is that contention, by the standards of science itself, well founded? Certainly, the acceptance of a complex and (perhaps evolutionarily) counterintuitive idea such as evolution is itself a complex phenomena. At least one other major variable has changed over that same time period that reasonably should have increased the public's rejection of evolutionary theory: the great increase in Evangelical/Pentacostal/Fundamentalist Protestantism, generally antithetical to evolution and naturalistic science, at the expense of the "mainline" Protestant sects that have been more science-friendly.
In my own (admittedly unscientific) view, I suspect that these numbers are stable because they represent some basic way people differ in how they look at the world and attempt to explain it. Be that as it may, focusing on one statistic is a highly suspect way to judge the effect of any program. Look, for example, at another statistic:
According to a 2006 study sponsored by the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative of the Center for American Progress and conducted by the firm Financial Dynamism ... [e]ighty percent of those questioned agree that "faith and science can and should coexist. We can respect our belief in God and our commitment to the dignity of every human life by using our scientific knowledge to help those who are sick or vulnerable." The same overwhelming number endorses the view that "stem cell research can be a force for moral good rather than a moral failing."
Why should we not attribute this highly encouraging result, at least in significant part, to the "accomodationist" campaign?
______________________________________
Update: Russell Blackford takes a position endorsed by Coyne; Wes Elsberry takes an opposite view and John Wilkins is collecting opinions.
______________________________________
Update II: Richard B. Hoppe, at Panda's Thumb, has made a frontal assault on Coyne and his allies (read it and see why the bellicose metaphors).
______________________________________
Update III: PZ responds to Richard B. Hoppe and Larry Moran joins in.
______________________________________
Update IV: And for some fireworks, Chris Mooney has taken a hand.
.
______________________________________
Update: Russell Blackford takes a position endorsed by Coyne; Wes Elsberry takes an opposite view and John Wilkins is collecting opinions.
______________________________________
Update II: Richard B. Hoppe, at Panda's Thumb, has made a frontal assault on Coyne and his allies (read it and see why the bellicose metaphors).
______________________________________
Update III: PZ responds to Richard B. Hoppe and Larry Moran joins in.
______________________________________
Update IV: And for some fireworks, Chris Mooney has taken a hand.
.
Comments:
<< Home
Thanks for linking to my post.
I like your point that organizations like the NAS and NCSE are simply countering propaganda when they highlight the fact that some religious believers do not see faith and science as necessarily incompatible.
It's not hard for a religious fundamentalist to understand why an atheist might view evolution as incompatible with religious belief. After all, that's probably the reason why they reject evolution in the first place. However, it is likely to be difficult for a religious fundamentalist to understand why some of their fellow believers might view evolution as compatible with religious belief.
Coyne's claim that the NAS is "endorsing a philosophy" by "saying that most religious people and scientists have no problem with evolution and faith" is doubly wrong, IMO.
First of all, AFAICT, they have never claimed that most religious people and scientists hold this view. They have merely highlighted the views of a few religious scientists in an attempt to reach out to those who reject evolution for religious reasons.
Second, the fact that they have done this is not "endorsing a philosophy." It is merely making people aware of a philosophical viewpoint that is likely to be unknown to the majority of those who reject evolution.
To me, one other blind spot in Coyne's argument is his apparent assumption that most atheists would agree with him regarding the supposed incompatibility between science and faith.
Clearly, Coyne believes that compatibility is impossible. I'm willing to bet, though, that the 92% of NAS scientists who reject the idea of a personal god do not all share Coyne's view. Obviously, theistic belief does not resonate with those 92%, but I doubt that they all would express the same kind of certitude that Coyne does concerning the possibility of it resonating with others.
I like your point that organizations like the NAS and NCSE are simply countering propaganda when they highlight the fact that some religious believers do not see faith and science as necessarily incompatible.
It's not hard for a religious fundamentalist to understand why an atheist might view evolution as incompatible with religious belief. After all, that's probably the reason why they reject evolution in the first place. However, it is likely to be difficult for a religious fundamentalist to understand why some of their fellow believers might view evolution as compatible with religious belief.
Coyne's claim that the NAS is "endorsing a philosophy" by "saying that most religious people and scientists have no problem with evolution and faith" is doubly wrong, IMO.
First of all, AFAICT, they have never claimed that most religious people and scientists hold this view. They have merely highlighted the views of a few religious scientists in an attempt to reach out to those who reject evolution for religious reasons.
Second, the fact that they have done this is not "endorsing a philosophy." It is merely making people aware of a philosophical viewpoint that is likely to be unknown to the majority of those who reject evolution.
To me, one other blind spot in Coyne's argument is his apparent assumption that most atheists would agree with him regarding the supposed incompatibility between science and faith.
Clearly, Coyne believes that compatibility is impossible. I'm willing to bet, though, that the 92% of NAS scientists who reject the idea of a personal god do not all share Coyne's view. Obviously, theistic belief does not resonate with those 92%, but I doubt that they all would express the same kind of certitude that Coyne does concerning the possibility of it resonating with others.
To me, one other blind spot in Coyne's argument is his apparent assumption that most atheists would agree with him regarding the supposed incompatibility between science and faith.
Yes, I've caught Larry Moran, for example, making the assumption that, just because the majority of NAS members are agnostics/atheists it necessarily follows that the majority think science and religion are incompatible. As far as I know, there has been no survey nor any circumstantial evidence (for example, a move to remove the officers who approved its booklet on creationism or to withdraw the booklet) to support that contention.
Needless to say (given my twisted sense of irony), I find this somewhat amusing.
Yes, I've caught Larry Moran, for example, making the assumption that, just because the majority of NAS members are agnostics/atheists it necessarily follows that the majority think science and religion are incompatible. As far as I know, there has been no survey nor any circumstantial evidence (for example, a move to remove the officers who approved its booklet on creationism or to withdraw the booklet) to support that contention.
Needless to say (given my twisted sense of irony), I find this somewhat amusing.
As I said at Wilkins' place earlier, I think it is disingenuous to imply that because some scientists have found a personally satisfactory reconciliation with religion, it ipso facto follows that a truly sound reconciliation is possible (I am not persuaded that it is, for theologies much above the Spinozan level). I think this puts science advocates in a difficult position -- prudently reluctant to have an open theist/atheist war, wanting to stick to the scientific issues (because, really, that's a big enough issue all on its own), but still forced to acknowledge the religious stumbling blocks that many people have. Hard to finesse, that is.
John Pieret writes,
Yes, I've caught Larry Moran, for example, making the assumption that, just because the majority of NAS members are agnostics/atheists it necessarily follows that the majority think science and religion are incompatible. As far as I know, there has been no survey nor any circumstantial evidence (for example, a move to remove the officers who approved its booklet on creationism or to withdraw the booklet) to support that contention.I don't recall ever saying that. I don't think that just because you are an atheist it necessarily follows that you think religion always conflicts with science.
As a matter of fact, I've been on record for decades promoting the position that true deism is one kind of religion that is compatible with science. And I'm an atheist.
What I might have said is that a large proportion of scientists are atheists and this strongly suggests that many scientists find it hard to practice science and be religious. Otherwise how do you explain the fact that the proportion of atheist scientists in a religious country like America is much higher than the proportion in the general public?
Many scientists think that superstition (religion) and rationalism (science) are incompatible. I'd be pleased if the major organizations like AAAS, NAS, and NCSE would at least recognize this opinion instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.
Yes, I've caught Larry Moran, for example, making the assumption that, just because the majority of NAS members are agnostics/atheists it necessarily follows that the majority think science and religion are incompatible. As far as I know, there has been no survey nor any circumstantial evidence (for example, a move to remove the officers who approved its booklet on creationism or to withdraw the booklet) to support that contention.I don't recall ever saying that. I don't think that just because you are an atheist it necessarily follows that you think religion always conflicts with science.
As a matter of fact, I've been on record for decades promoting the position that true deism is one kind of religion that is compatible with science. And I'm an atheist.
What I might have said is that a large proportion of scientists are atheists and this strongly suggests that many scientists find it hard to practice science and be religious. Otherwise how do you explain the fact that the proportion of atheist scientists in a religious country like America is much higher than the proportion in the general public?
Many scientists think that superstition (religion) and rationalism (science) are incompatible. I'd be pleased if the major organizations like AAAS, NAS, and NCSE would at least recognize this opinion instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.
Uh, Larry ...
Instead they presented their case as though there was widespread consensus among scientists that science and religion do not conflict.
Anyone reading this pamphlet would be justified in assuming that every member of the committee—and most scientists in the National Academies—believed that science and religion were not in conflict. They would assume that most scientists accepted the explanations of Francis Collins and Ken Miller in defense of their personal, Christian, religious faiths.
As you know, John, that would be an incorrect assumption.
Now, whether you agree with me or not about the conflict between science and religion, you have to admit that Francis Collins and Ken Miller do not represent the dominant philosophy of American members of the academies.
Thus, I conclude that the pamphlet is guilty of "framing" in the worst sense of the word. The authors are deliberately stating something that they know is misleading. They're doing this in order to advance the political agenda of appeasement at the expense of scientific accuracy.
Sure, Miller's and Collins' religious beliefs are not common in the NAS, but I still haven't seen any evidence that the view that science and religion are necessarily incompatible is all that widespread either.
... how do you explain the fact that the proportion of atheist scientists in a religious country like America is much higher than the proportion in the general public?
People disposed to believe in philosophical naturalism may also be more disposed to pursue science as a career. That doesn't mean they are incompatible, however. Correlation doesn't equate to causation ... if I remember correctly.
I'd be pleased if the major organizations like AAAS, NAS, and NCSE would at least recognize this opinion instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.
From the NAS booklet:
"To be sure, disagreements do exist. Some people reject any science that contains the word “evolution”; others reject all forms of religion. The range of beliefs about science and about religion is very broad. Regrettably, those who occupy the extremes of this range often have set the tone of public discussions. Evolution is science, however, and only science should be taught and learned in science classes."
I understand that you'd like more from the NAS, but its problem isn't convincing atheists to accept evolutionary biology. And it's not like the atheists are having any problem getting their message out. I think the NAS is right on this point -- like all of American politics, the opposing ends of the spectrum wind up getting all the attention.
Instead they presented their case as though there was widespread consensus among scientists that science and religion do not conflict.
Anyone reading this pamphlet would be justified in assuming that every member of the committee—and most scientists in the National Academies—believed that science and religion were not in conflict. They would assume that most scientists accepted the explanations of Francis Collins and Ken Miller in defense of their personal, Christian, religious faiths.
As you know, John, that would be an incorrect assumption.
Now, whether you agree with me or not about the conflict between science and religion, you have to admit that Francis Collins and Ken Miller do not represent the dominant philosophy of American members of the academies.
Thus, I conclude that the pamphlet is guilty of "framing" in the worst sense of the word. The authors are deliberately stating something that they know is misleading. They're doing this in order to advance the political agenda of appeasement at the expense of scientific accuracy.
Sure, Miller's and Collins' religious beliefs are not common in the NAS, but I still haven't seen any evidence that the view that science and religion are necessarily incompatible is all that widespread either.
... how do you explain the fact that the proportion of atheist scientists in a religious country like America is much higher than the proportion in the general public?
People disposed to believe in philosophical naturalism may also be more disposed to pursue science as a career. That doesn't mean they are incompatible, however. Correlation doesn't equate to causation ... if I remember correctly.
I'd be pleased if the major organizations like AAAS, NAS, and NCSE would at least recognize this opinion instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.
From the NAS booklet:
"To be sure, disagreements do exist. Some people reject any science that contains the word “evolution”; others reject all forms of religion. The range of beliefs about science and about religion is very broad. Regrettably, those who occupy the extremes of this range often have set the tone of public discussions. Evolution is science, however, and only science should be taught and learned in science classes."
I understand that you'd like more from the NAS, but its problem isn't convincing atheists to accept evolutionary biology. And it's not like the atheists are having any problem getting their message out. I think the NAS is right on this point -- like all of American politics, the opposing ends of the spectrum wind up getting all the attention.
Eamon:
... it is disingenuous to imply that because some scientists have found a personally satisfactory reconciliation with religion, it ipso facto follows that a truly sound reconciliation is possible ...
Given that there is no objective standard (or so I'd think an atheist would hold) for theology, I'm not sure what counts as a "truly sound reconciliation." It's rather like saying that there is no "truly sound reconciliation" between those who like Bach and those who like the Beatles ... how can you tell? Even though there is an objective standard for what is good science, you still have a totally moving target on the other side.
... it is disingenuous to imply that because some scientists have found a personally satisfactory reconciliation with religion, it ipso facto follows that a truly sound reconciliation is possible ...
Given that there is no objective standard (or so I'd think an atheist would hold) for theology, I'm not sure what counts as a "truly sound reconciliation." It's rather like saying that there is no "truly sound reconciliation" between those who like Bach and those who like the Beatles ... how can you tell? Even though there is an objective standard for what is good science, you still have a totally moving target on the other side.
Given that there is no objective standard (or so I'd think an atheist would hold) for theology, I'm not sure what counts as a "truly sound reconciliation."And neither am I. My following context "unpersuaded that it is [possible]" also includes "unpersuaded that it isn't".
Nonetheless, any theology whose god interacts with the world is laying that god open to scientific investigation and refutation. The only way to avoid the conflict (other than, alone among all religions, managing to hit upon a god who really exists and whose miracles are empirically detectable) is to find some way of stipulating that the god's actions are undetectable -- yet still somehow matter enough to make devotion worthwhile. Otherwise, I think we're back to deism, or Spinozan pantheism, or something like that.
I won't say it can't be done. But I'm not interested.
Nonetheless, any theology whose god interacts with the world is laying that god open to scientific investigation and refutation. The only way to avoid the conflict (other than, alone among all religions, managing to hit upon a god who really exists and whose miracles are empirically detectable) is to find some way of stipulating that the god's actions are undetectable -- yet still somehow matter enough to make devotion worthwhile. Otherwise, I think we're back to deism, or Spinozan pantheism, or something like that.
I won't say it can't be done. But I'm not interested.
I think you can do it with a combination of our inherently limited knowledge of the empiric world and of the motives and methods of any (proposed) infinite being (and, probably, no small dollop of double-think). It won't be a "rational" reconcilliation on the theological side but belief was never rational to begin with (and claims to rationality by humans have always to be taken with a grain of salt anyway).
Like you, I'm not interested. But judging by the only objective standard we have, the science that is done, it appears that reconcilliation can be achieved because theists can and do good, even great, science. How they do it is a matter of indifference to me as well.
Like you, I'm not interested. But judging by the only objective standard we have, the science that is done, it appears that reconcilliation can be achieved because theists can and do good, even great, science. How they do it is a matter of indifference to me as well.
Jeremy, I very much enjoyed your videos on your Evolving Creation web page.
The more difficult marriage is whether religion can accept science. Collins, in his book pronounced his faith and how he met God by looking at a beautiful place. But it he kept God in one pocket and Science in the other. He never tried to reconcile the two, he just simply was religious because he encountered God.
I spent many years thinking you could reconcile science and religion. You just put the fact that Adam and Eve weren’t real, off to the side. You put the fact that there is no evidence what so ever of Noah’s flood, and you put that off to the side. You do the math, of how long it would take 2 million people to walk out of Egypt, and you realize that story could not have been true. But you set that aside and you tell yourself, “I’m religious”.
But one day your house of faith cards collapses. You get asked the question, ok, what is religion’s story? God created the universe 13.5 billion years ago, and let it progress simply by the laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics and eventually the theory of evolution? Then, on October 23, 4004 BC, God put souls in mankind? Created a unbelievable set of laws about animal and human sacrifice. Calls for genocide, kills millions of kids, develops horrible plagues and condemns his creation to hell for eating an apple?
If your going to believe that science and religion are compatible, then what is religion’s story? If the bible isn’t true, then what is the bible?
The more difficult marriage is whether religion can accept science. Collins, in his book pronounced his faith and how he met God by looking at a beautiful place. But it he kept God in one pocket and Science in the other. He never tried to reconcile the two, he just simply was religious because he encountered God.
I spent many years thinking you could reconcile science and religion. You just put the fact that Adam and Eve weren’t real, off to the side. You put the fact that there is no evidence what so ever of Noah’s flood, and you put that off to the side. You do the math, of how long it would take 2 million people to walk out of Egypt, and you realize that story could not have been true. But you set that aside and you tell yourself, “I’m religious”.
But one day your house of faith cards collapses. You get asked the question, ok, what is religion’s story? God created the universe 13.5 billion years ago, and let it progress simply by the laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics and eventually the theory of evolution? Then, on October 23, 4004 BC, God put souls in mankind? Created a unbelievable set of laws about animal and human sacrifice. Calls for genocide, kills millions of kids, develops horrible plagues and condemns his creation to hell for eating an apple?
If your going to believe that science and religion are compatible, then what is religion’s story? If the bible isn’t true, then what is the bible?
# posted by 
: 10:57 PM
: 10:57 PM
Science and religion...?
Origin And Nature Of Earth Life, An Update…
Liberate your mind from concepts dictated by religious trade-union AAAS.
1) Life is just another mass format. 2) re-comprehend natural selection. 3) natural selection is ubiquitous, for all mass formats.
Life Evolves by Naturally Selected Organic Matter
I.
Homegrown Organic Matter Found on Mars, But No Life
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/homegrown-organic-matter-found-o.html?ref=em
II. EarthLife Genesis From Aromaticity/H-Bonding
http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/
September 30, 2011
A.
Purines and pyrimidines are two of the building blocks of nucleic acids. Only two purines and three pyrimidines occur widely in nucleic acids.
B.
Pyrimidine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.
A purine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound, consisting of a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring. Purines, including substituted purines and their tautomers, are the most widely distributed kind of nitrogen-containing heterocycle in nature.
Aromaticity ( Kekule, Loschmidt, Thiele) is essential for the Krebs Cycle for energy production.
C.
Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format.
Natural selection is a universal ubiquitous trait of ALL mass spin formats, inanimate and animate.
Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection – self replication.
Aromaticity enables good constraining of energy and good propensity to hydrogen bonding. The address of Earth Life Genesis, of phasing from inanimate to animate natural selection, is Aromaticity.Hydrogen Bonding.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
tags: life genesis, natural selection, life mass format
Origin And Nature Of Earth Life, An Update…
Liberate your mind from concepts dictated by religious trade-union AAAS.
1) Life is just another mass format. 2) re-comprehend natural selection. 3) natural selection is ubiquitous, for all mass formats.
Life Evolves by Naturally Selected Organic Matter
I.
Homegrown Organic Matter Found on Mars, But No Life
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/homegrown-organic-matter-found-o.html?ref=em
II. EarthLife Genesis From Aromaticity/H-Bonding
http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/
September 30, 2011
A.
Purines and pyrimidines are two of the building blocks of nucleic acids. Only two purines and three pyrimidines occur widely in nucleic acids.
B.
Pyrimidine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.
A purine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound, consisting of a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring. Purines, including substituted purines and their tautomers, are the most widely distributed kind of nitrogen-containing heterocycle in nature.
Aromaticity ( Kekule, Loschmidt, Thiele) is essential for the Krebs Cycle for energy production.
C.
Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format.
Natural selection is a universal ubiquitous trait of ALL mass spin formats, inanimate and animate.
Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection – self replication.
Aromaticity enables good constraining of energy and good propensity to hydrogen bonding. The address of Earth Life Genesis, of phasing from inanimate to animate natural selection, is Aromaticity.Hydrogen Bonding.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
tags: life genesis, natural selection, life mass format
Science and religion...?
Origin And Nature Of Earth Life, An Update…
Liberate your mind from concepts dictated by religious trade-union AAAS.
1) Life is just another mass format. 2) re-comprehend natural selection. 3) natural selection is ubiquitous, for all mass formats.
Life Evolves by Naturally Selected Organic Matter
I.
Homegrown Organic Matter Found on Mars, But No Life
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/homegrown-organic-matter-found-o.html?ref=em
II. EarthLife Genesis From Aromaticity/H-Bonding
http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/
September 30, 2011
A.
Purines and pyrimidines are two of the building blocks of nucleic acids. Only two purines and three pyrimidines occur widely in nucleic acids.
B.
Pyrimidine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.
A purine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound, consisting of a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring. Purines, including substituted purines and their tautomers, are the most widely distributed kind of nitrogen-containing heterocycle in nature.
Aromaticity ( Kekule, Loschmidt, Thiele) is essential for the Krebs Cycle for energy production.
C.
Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format.
Natural selection is a universal ubiquitous trait of ALL mass spin formats, inanimate and animate.
Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection – self replication.
Aromaticity enables good constraining of energy and good propensity to hydrogen bonding. The address of Earth Life Genesis, of phasing from inanimate to animate natural selection, is Aromaticity.Hydrogen Bonding.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
tags: life genesis, natural selection, life mass format
Post a Comment
Origin And Nature Of Earth Life, An Update…
Liberate your mind from concepts dictated by religious trade-union AAAS.
1) Life is just another mass format. 2) re-comprehend natural selection. 3) natural selection is ubiquitous, for all mass formats.
Life Evolves by Naturally Selected Organic Matter
I.
Homegrown Organic Matter Found on Mars, But No Life
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/homegrown-organic-matter-found-o.html?ref=em
II. EarthLife Genesis From Aromaticity/H-Bonding
http://universe-life.com/2011/09/30/earthlife-genesis-from-aromaticityh-bonding/
September 30, 2011
A.
Purines and pyrimidines are two of the building blocks of nucleic acids. Only two purines and three pyrimidines occur widely in nucleic acids.
B.
Pyrimidine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.
A purine is a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound, consisting of a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring. Purines, including substituted purines and their tautomers, are the most widely distributed kind of nitrogen-containing heterocycle in nature.
Aromaticity ( Kekule, Loschmidt, Thiele) is essential for the Krebs Cycle for energy production.
C.
Natural selection is E (energy) temporarily constrained in an m (mass) format.
Natural selection is a universal ubiquitous trait of ALL mass spin formats, inanimate and animate.
Life began/evolved on Earth with the natural selection of inanimate RNA, then of some RNA nucleotides, then arriving at the ultimate mode of natural selection – self replication.
Aromaticity enables good constraining of energy and good propensity to hydrogen bonding. The address of Earth Life Genesis, of phasing from inanimate to animate natural selection, is Aromaticity.Hydrogen Bonding.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/
tags: life genesis, natural selection, life mass format
<< Home
