At about 35,000 years ago a young human (pre-Adam I think we can suppose), whether male or female we don’t have any idea, sketched in charcoal the life stages of wild horses in the Grotte Chauvet cave in France. We know the person was young because they left their footprints in the soft clay on the cave floor. Sketched in remarkable detail are four horses. The first shows a mature horse, head down as if grazing. Only the horses head and neck are shown because the three subsequent horses are superimposed on each of the previous, the head is rendered in striking realism. The next horse, again with head lowered, has its ears laid back in a fierce expression—perhaps the depiction of a young stallion defending its herd. The next in the sequence shows a young horse, calmly resting, its eyes closed in quite repose. Finally, a young colt completes the scene, its dark head colored in completely. The painting is carefully rendered and shows a detailed familiarity of horse anatomy and behavior. It also depicts a sophisticated artistic sense. The painting was not hurriedly done, nor dashed out on the spur of the moment. The area where the painting was made was carefully prepared. The cave wall was scrapped to expose the soft, white, limestone beneath. The contours of the cave were used to enhance the effect of the painting and give it greater three-dimensionality and a sense of movement.. The sequence shows simply and effectively the life story of a Pleistocene horse. The painting is not the depiction of a realistic scene, or actual event, but the abstract representation of a horse through time. The painter was expressing art as we know it, abstract and representational. What meaning did this work have for the painter? Why did he or she make the effort to crawl so deeply into the cave? Darkened patches on the ceiling show that the work was done by the light of torches. Why? Was it a ritual painting designed to ensure a successful hunt? Was it done to beautify the world? We don’t know exactly. But we have an idea. We are a kindred spirit with the person that struggled into that cave so long ago. We are of the same species. We have similar inclinations. We paint and enjoy the art of others for various reasons, but we recognize in this ancient art all the elements that inform our own appreciation of art. We don’t know the exact reason the horses were painted, but we recognize it as art. Art is something we do. And as far as we know we are the only species that has ever lived on this planet that uses and appreciates art. Art? Why?
After my Tribune article dissing Intellegent Design Theory I received the following:
I believe you could help me understand your statements about how “a whale’s leg turned into a flipper” and the evolution of flight from a reptile to a bird. I would like know what experiment you or other scientists used to show how a leg turns into a flipper and how a reptile turns into a bird? Lastly, what experiment did you or others use to show where DNA came from, and what mechanism caused it to occur.
I think the person is pointing out to me that no experiments could be done of this nature and so evolution is not science. And heaven knows, I’ve had a devil of time getting reptiles to Darwin into birds in the laboratory. (However, microbiologists get bacteria to evolve all the time—lucky dogs.) But the view that science just is experimentation is a very late 19th Century positivistic view of science. For example, astronomers hardly ever do experiments with galaxies and such (and it’s not just that they don’t fit into beakers, well the big ones don’t anyway). Today we realize that science is much more than experimental manipulation. As philosopher of science Ludwig Fleck pointed out in his Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact some of the methods of science include: Logic, testing, trail & error, creativity, memory, falsification, confirmation, influence of current theory and paradigms, apprenticeships, refining technique, discussion, argument, going back to the drawing board, imagination, doubt, belief, asking questions, challenging convention, dreaming . . . and yes doing experiments where possible. One thing is clear: Science is an Art.