Carl Linnaeus lived in Sweden in the eighteenth century. He developed a system for classification – for the whole realm of nature. Most of us have used words like family, class, order, and kingdom. Some of us have sometimes used words like species and genus. Not many of us are still able to recall from our biology school days the package deal of species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom. Carl Linnaeus’ used this package as sifts to develop the mother of classification systems in the modern era. Things in nature belong to a species, belong to a bigger genus, belong to a bigger family, belong to a bigger order, and so on - all the way up to being part of the kingdom. Through Linnaeus package of sifts we have just five kingdoms at the top: animals, plants, fungi, bacteria and protoctists. It is a pretty straightforward pyramid system that helped many to classify effectively. Let us call all the people who used his system the Linnaeunites.
People lived in basic harmony and peace with Linnaeunites, but gradually a new group formed that became unsatisfied. They are called by many names. The name that will be used here is Darwinites. Their founder’s well known book, Origin of Species, was already published in 1859. For a hundred years they grew and got stronger and then could not keep silent any more. Since the middle of the twentieth century Darwinites began to ask whether the theory of evolution should not impact the way people classify.
The Cladites and the Pheneticites
It was particularly two sub-tribes that really started the war. They were called the Cladites and the Pheneticites (more appreciated in some circles by their names Cladists and Pheniticists). They were two rival groups that emerged in the 1970’s. The Cladites were convinced evolutionary history is indispensable for classification – good taxonomy they called it. But the Pheneticites challenged that. They thought classification can and should be totally independent of evolutionary considerations. As could be expected, after a while a third group - E-taxonomites (evolutionary taxonomists) - arose who thought that a midway approach was the way out of the quarrel.
The bone of contention in one of their biggest quarrels – in some circles called the monkey trials - was the following: how do we classify biologically upstream from the human species. The usual classification nowadays says humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons are all members of the Homonoid superfamily. Baboons, however, are not counted as Homonoids. Why?
The Pheneticites answer that baboons do not have all the features of the rest of the group, especially the lack of a tail. Similarity is the Pheneticites’ ultimate consideration for classification. Apes of the same “feather” should be flocked together. Who wants to argue with that? Classification should convey information and in this case the information is clear – not the head, but the lack of tail qualifies you for being part of the Homonoid superfamily. You may be an ape, but you are not a baboon.
The Cladites beg, yes war, to differ. Similarity, they say, should count for nothing in classification. A common ancestor in the near past – that’s how you classify. What matters are the relationships between species in the near past. “Near” means here about four to six million years. Interestingly enough Cladites agree that baboons should be excluded from the Homonoid superfamily, but they think the reason for the decision - their ultimate consideration - is important: nearby ancestors, not similarity. Their ultimate consideration becomes clearer when they classify reptiles. Consistent Cladites point out that birds also have the same near ancestry than reptiles in the Darwinite camp. They even suggest that Reptilia as taxonomic group should be abandoned. This is where the plot, as they say, thickens. Even scientists sympathetic to the spirit of the Cladites, hesitate to abandon the traditional reptile classification. Why do they hesitate? If you are not confused by this, you are not paying attention. Could it perhaps become too clear what the consequences of their ultimate considerations are?
Philosophy of Science 101
Alex Rosenberg is an expert in philosophy of science and not exactly a friend to the Christian faith. He knows the blind spots of science. He is sympathetic towards the Darwinite camp, but admits the educated guesses and faith involved in any scientific endeavour. He is also clearer than many about the obvious consequences if the Darwinites should conquer:Darwin’s revolutionary accomplishments have a relevance to every aspect of intellectual debate in contemporary culture. Their implications for religion are so obvious everywhere that even 150 years after the publication of “On the origin of Species” Darwin’s theory is controverted by those who rightly fear its inimical implications for theism.
One thing is certain; Adam’s original task of naming – classification - was more complex than we normally think. It all began with him, not with Linnaeus. Classification and naming is not a secondary issue. It is one of our ultimate projects since the beginning. It cannot be done apart from your view of the world. It also cannot be avoided. It can only be done either out of tune or more in tune with the way this magical, crazy planet works. Someone like Rosenberg admits the glasses through which he, though which everyone looks. He also admits that the glasses determine even your criteria when you classify. Criteria like similarity or ancestry are chosen because of your pair of glasses.
So, what about a new pair of glasses? What about a set of glasses where humans are classified not according to supposed biological ancestry or the absence of a tail, but rather through the reality of their tale? Every classification has a tale of humans in the background. That tale determines whether we will classify by similarity or nearby ancestry. Every science that denies this, should take some science lessons in the philosophy of science department. One of the first lessons in that class is: we should know the story behind our stories of science. That includes Wikipedia. Even when they say it’s classified.
Soundslides: http://foucachonmedia.com/alwyn/AlwynSwanepoel-project-SD.mp4
No comments:
Post a Comment