evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-03--COVID-19 Adult Stem-Cell Trials: A Hopeful Sign

I was disappointed in Governor Andrew Cuomo ’ s dour statement that “ we will never be the same ” and we that we won ’ t “ get back to normal .
There will be a new normal.
” I understand he is dealing with excruciating issues of life and death , but given the history of the United States , such pessimism is unwarranted .
We have faced far worse than this and have moved through the pain into a better tomorrow .
We will this time too .
Here ’ s a small reason for optimism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential of malaria drugs , and antiviral testing , adult stem cells are also being deployed in current or imminent human trials for treating the physical effects of the COVID-19 virus .
One early study on seven patients with corona viral pneumonia has been completed with hopeful results .
From the study published in Aging and Disease : The pulmonary function and symptoms of these seven patients were significantly improved in 2 days after MSC [ Mesenchymal stem cells ] transplantation .
Among them , two common and one severe patient were recovered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After treatment , the peripheral lymphocytes were increased , the C-reactive protein decreased , and the overactivated cytokine-secreting immune cells CXCR3+CD4+ T cells , CXCR3+CD8+ T cells , and CXCR3+ NK cells disappeared in 3-6 days .
The scientists ’ conclusion about the potential of these stem cells ?
No , it is not a cure .
Much more work remains to be done to even get close to saying it is .
But it is a hopeful sign ( among many ) .
As we mourn the dead , succor the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and aid the suddenly unemployed , let ’ s not lose sight of the fact that progress is being made .
And that ’ s the point .
With the public and private sectors energetically engaged in finding treatments and vaccines , manufacturing durable medical equipment , keeping food on our tables , electricity in our homes , and caring for the sick , this too shall pass .
We will thrive again .
Photo : An adult stem cell , by Robert M. Hunt / CC BY .

I was disappointed in Governor Andrew Cuomo’s dour statement that “we will never be the same” and that we won’t “get back to normal. There will be a new normal.”
I understand he is dealing with excruciating issues of life and death, but given the history of the United States, such pessimism is unwarranted. We have faced far worse than this and have moved through the pain into a better tomorrow. We will this time too.
Here’s a small reason for optimism. In addition to vaccine research, the potential of malaria drugs, and antiviral testing, adult stem cells are also being deployed in current or imminent human trials for treating the physical effects of the COVID-19 virus. One early study on seven patients with corona viral pneumonia has been completed with hopeful results. From the study published in Aging and Disease:
The pulmonary function and symptoms of these seven patients were significantly improved in 2 days after MSC [Mesenchymal stem cells] transplantation. Among them, two common and one severe patient were recovered and discharged in 10 days after treatment. After treatment, the peripheral lymphocytes were increased, the C-reactive protein decreased, and the overactivated cytokine-secreting immune cells CXCR3+CD4+ T cells, CXCR3+CD8+ T cells, and CXCR3+ NK cells disappeared in 3-6 days.
The scientists’ conclusion about the potential of these stem cells?
The intravenous transplantation of MSCs was safe and effective for treatment in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, especially for the patients in critically severe condition.
Is This a “Cure”?
No, it is not a cure. Much more work remains to be done to even get close to saying it is.
But it is a hopeful sign (among many). As we mourn the dead, succor the ill, hunker down in social isolation, and aid the suddenly unemployed, let’s not lose sight of the fact that progress is being made.
And that’s the point. With the public and private sectors energetically engaged in finding treatments and vaccines, manufacturing durable medical equipment, keeping food on our tables, electricity in our homes, and caring for the sick, this too shall pass. We will thrive again.
Photo: An adult stem cell, by Robert M. Hunt / CC BY.
Cross-posted at The Corner.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-03--The “Why” of the Fly “Y”: Reflections on “Junk” DNA

In April 1980 , almost exactly forty years ago , the journal Nature published a pair of highly influential articles on the topic of what has become known as “ junk ” or “ selfish ” DNA .
Both reflected the key concept of The Selfish Gene , the highly influential 1976 book by Richard Dawkins , namely , that organisms are merely DNA ’ s way of making more DNA .
The first was authored by W. Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza and titled “ Selfish genes , the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution.
” 1 The second was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and titled “ Selfish DNA : the ultimate parasite.
” 2 Together they posited an easy-to-grasp way to conceive of “ excess ” nucleotides along chromosomes — repetitive sequences in general and transposable elements in particular .
In short , it was proposed that most such DNA elements neither had nor have ( developmental ) effects or functions ( in general ) in the shaping of an organism ’ s traits ( its “ phenotype ” ) .
And because they have “ no phenotypic expression ” ( as Doolittle and Sapienza put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect on the phenotype ” ( as Orgel and Crick put it ) , the only role that can be ascribed to them is that of replicative survival .
But there are two problems with this outlook , one empirical and one formal .
That which is empirical involves the organization of ( eukaryotic ) chromosomes , whereas that which is formal involves how to define “ effect , ” “ expression , ” and “ function ” when it comes to repetitive DNA sequences of any type .
And so to narrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us give some thought to the Y chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster , that engaging fly which is the bond-servant of genetics , as it is replete with a “ junk ” and “ selfish ” typography .
Note that I will only be briefly touching on the first problem in this piece .
Now the Y chromosome of this species is approximately 40,000,000 bases in length , and that is significant for it makes up around 20 percent of the male haploid DNA content.3-4 While it is essential for male fertility , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are interrupted by or surrounded by vast tracks of ( often degenerated ) transposable elements , tandemly arranged runs of “ satellite ” units ( such as AACAC , AATAG , AATAT , and so forth ) , a block of ribosomal-RNA genes , and various other sequence families.5 In addition , its various components are densely compacted in somatic-cell nuclei , and this “ heterochromatin ” is supposedly “ inert ” until around the stage the primary spermatocytes are formed .
I hasten to mention also that its composition of DNA varies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even though its protein-coding sequences are stable throughout.6 What all of this seems to suggest , then , is that the bulk of this chromosome may have “ no phenotypic expression ” or “ little or no effect on the phenotype ” in males of this species .
Recall , however , that I said that there are two problems with this outlook , one of which is empirical .
Concerning that , let us note that by the mid 1950s it was well-established that introducing a Y chromosome into a female @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fruit-fly genetics ) leads to a broad range of phenotypic effects , as does increasing the copies or dosage of a Y chromosome in a male of the same.7 Not only that , but with the sixty-plus years that have elapsed , we are much closer to understanding how such phenotypic effects due to “ junk ” or “ selfish ” DNA sequences take place .
For one thing , it is now clear that different Y-chromosome sequence variants can differentially alter the expression of hundreds of genes in the somatic cells of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are affected are those of interest to the population geneticist — including such things as male reproductive traits .
Then again , many of the genes so modulated by the Y chromosome in this Drosophila species are positioned in so-called “ repressed ” chromatin domains.11 Apropos is an in-press work by Emily Brown , Alison Nguyen , and Doris Bachtrog that tests a hypothesis to explain such Y-chromosomal-based phenotypic effects.12 Some have suggested that long stretches of repetitive elements on that chromosome ( which again is millions of bases long ) can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titrates out heterochromatic proteins , thereby depleting the latter in other domains of a nucleus.13 Congruent with this hypothesis , Brown and colleagues showed that a consequence of introducing a Y chromosome into a female , or by decreasing or increasing the copies or dosage of a Y chromosome in a male line , is a widespread redistribution in nuclei of histone markers that are specific for heterochromatin , but not for those that are specific for “ active ” euchromatin .
This means that the Y-sequences do make their absence or presence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known ” in morphogenesis .
What is more , the balance of chromatin domains in female versus male flies is likely to be en masse modulated by such parameters .
We can thus rephrase what Doolittle and Sapienza or Orgel and Crick asserted back in 1980 in this manner : Seemingly “ excess ” nucleotides do have “ phenotypic expressions ” be they ever so indirect , which is to say that they do have “ major effects on the phenotype.
” It thus looks like there is a “ why ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does not fit the axioms with which the “ junk DNA ” advocates beset us .
Yet we should note that such a possibility was never actually excluded , for as Doolittle and Sapienza claimed : “ We do not deny that…repetitive and unique-sequence DNAs not coding for protein in eukaryotes may have roles of immediate phenotypic benefit to the organism.
” 2 • Doolittle W.F.
, Sapienza C. 1980 .
Selfish genes , the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution .
Nature 284 : 601-603 .
• Chang C.-H. , Larracuente A.M. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and organization of the Drosophila melanogaster Y chromosome .
Genetics 211 : 333-348 .
• Gatti M. , Pimpinelli S. 1983 .
Cytological and genetic analysis of the Y-chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster .
1 .
Organization of the fertility factors .
Chromosoma 88 : 349-373 .
• Bonaccorsi S. , Lohe A .
1991 .
Fine mapping of satellite DNA sequences along the Y chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster : relationships between satellite sequences and fertility factors .
Genetics 129 : 177-189 .
• Larracuente A.M. , Clark A.G. 2013 .
Surprising differences in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cosmopolitan populations of Drosophila melanogaster .
Genetics 193 : 201-214 .
• Cooper , K.W .
1956 .
Phenotypic effects of Y chromosomal hyperploidy in Drosophila melanogaster , and their relation to variegation .
Genetics 41 : 242-264 .
• Lemos B. , Branco A.T. , Hartl D.L .
2010 .
Epigenetic effects of polymorphic Y chromosomes modulate chromatin components , immune response , and sexual conflict .
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science ( U.S.A. ) 107 : 15826-15831 .
• Sackton T.B.
, Montenegro H. , Hartl D.L.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chromosome introgressions disrupt testis-specific gene expression and male reproductive phenotypes in Drosophila .
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science ( U.S.A. ) 108 : 17046-17051 .
• Sackton T.B.
, Hartl D.L .
2013 .
Meta-analysis reveals that genes regulated by the Y chromosome in Drosophila melanogaster are preferentially localized to repressive chromatin .
Genome Biology and Evolution 5 : 255-266 .
• Brown E.J.
, Nguyen A.H. , Bachtrog D. 2020 .
The Drosophila Y chromosome affects heterochromatin integrity genome-wide .
Molecular Biology and Evolution ( in press ) .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .

In April 1980, almost exactly forty years ago, the journal Nature published a pair of highly influential articles on the topic of what has become known as “junk” or “selfish” DNA. Both reflected the key concept of The Selfish Gene, the highly influential 1976 book by Richard Dawkins, namely, that organisms are merely DNA’s way of making more DNA. The first was authored by W. Ford Doolittle and Carmen Sapienza and titled “Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution.”1 The second was authored by Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick and titled “Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite.”2 Together they posited an easy-to-grasp way to conceive of “excess” nucleotides along chromosomes — repetitive sequences in general and transposable elements in particular. In short, it was proposed that most such DNA elements neither had nor have (developmental) effects or functions (in general) in the shaping of an organism’s traits (its “phenotype”). And because they have “no phenotypic expression” (as Doolittle and Sapienza put it) or “little or no effect on the phenotype” (as Orgel and Crick put it), the only role that can be ascribed to them is that of replicative survival.
Bond-Servant of Genetics
But there are two problems with this outlook, one empirical and one formal. That which is empirical involves the organization of (eukaryotic) chromosomes, whereas that which is formal involves how to define “effect,” “expression,” and “function” when it comes to repetitive DNA sequences of any type. And so to narrow our focus on these problems, let us give some thought to the Y chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster, that engaging fly which is the bond-servant of genetics, as it is replete with a “junk” and “selfish” typography. Note that I will only be briefly touching on the first problem in this piece.
Now the Y chromosome of this species is approximately 40,000,000 bases in length, and that is significant for it makes up around 20 percent of the male haploid DNA content.3-4 While it is essential for male fertility, it has but few protein-coding regions and these are interrupted by or surrounded by vast tracks of (often degenerated) transposable elements, tandemly arranged runs of “satellite” units (such as AACAC, AATAG, AATAT, and so forth), a block of ribosomal-RNA genes, and various other sequence families.5 In addition, its various components are densely compacted in somatic-cell nuclei, and this “heterochromatin” is supposedly “inert” until around the stage the primary spermatocytes are formed. I hasten to mention also that its composition of DNA varies from strain to strain of D. melanogaster, even though its protein-coding sequences are stable throughout.6 What all of this seems to suggest, then, is that the bulk of this chromosome may have “no phenotypic expression” or “little or no effect on the phenotype” in males of this species.
The Empirical Problem
Recall, however, that I said that there are two problems with this outlook, one of which is empirical. Concerning that, let us note that by the mid 1950s it was well-established that introducing a Y chromosome into a female D. melanogaster (by the feats of fruit-fly genetics) leads to a broad range of phenotypic effects, as does increasing the copies or dosage of a Y chromosome in a male of the same.7 Not only that, but with the sixty-plus years that have elapsed, we are much closer to understanding how such phenotypic effects due to “junk” or “selfish” DNA sequences take place. For one thing, it is now clear that different Y-chromosome sequence variants can differentially alter the expression of hundreds of genes in the somatic cells of male flies.8-10 For another, the characters that are affected are those of interest to the population geneticist — including such things as male reproductive traits. Then again, many of the genes so modulated by the Y chromosome in this Drosophila species are positioned in so-called “repressed” chromatin domains.11
A “Sink” that Titrates
Apropos is an in-press work by Emily Brown, Alison Nguyen, and Doris Bachtrog that tests a hypothesis to explain such Y-chromosomal-based phenotypic effects.12 Some have suggested that long stretches of repetitive elements on that chromosome (which again is millions of bases long) can serve as a “sink” that titrates out heterochromatic proteins, thereby depleting the latter in other domains of a nucleus.13 Congruent with this hypothesis, Brown and colleagues showed that a consequence of introducing a Y chromosome into a female, or by decreasing or increasing the copies or dosage of a Y chromosome in a male line, is a widespread redistribution in nuclei of histone markers that are specific for heterochromatin, but not for those that are specific for “active” euchromatin. This means that the Y-sequences do make their absence or presence and (if present) quantities “known” in morphogenesis. What is more, the balance of chromatin domains in female versus male flies is likely to be en masse modulated by such parameters.
We can thus rephrase what Doolittle and Sapienza or Orgel and Crick asserted back in 1980 in this manner: Seemingly “excess” nucleotides do have “phenotypic expressions” be they ever so indirect, which is to say that they do have “major effects on the phenotype.” It thus looks like there is a “why” to the fly “Y,” though it does not fit the axioms with which the “junk DNA” advocates beset us. Yet we should note that such a possibility was never actually excluded, for as Doolittle and Sapienza claimed: “We do not deny that…repetitive and unique-sequence DNAs not coding for protein in eukaryotes may have roles of immediate phenotypic benefit to the organism.”2
References:
Doolittle W.F., Sapienza C. 1980. Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution. Nature 284: 601-603. Orgel L.E., Crick F.H. 1980. Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Nature 284: 604-607. Chang C.-H., Larracuente A.M. 2019. Heterochromatin-enriched assemblies reveal the sequence and organization of the Drosophila melanogaster Y chromosome. Genetics 211: 333-348. Gatti M., Pimpinelli S. 1983. Cytological and genetic analysis of the Y-chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster. 1. Organization of the fertility factors. Chromosoma 88: 349-373. Bonaccorsi S., Lohe A. 1991. Fine mapping of satellite DNA sequences along the Y chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster: relationships between satellite sequences and fertility factors. Genetics 129: 177-189. Larracuente A.M., Clark A.G. 2013. Surprising differences in the variability of Y chromosomes in African and cosmopolitan populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 193: 201-214. Cooper, K.W. 1956. Phenotypic effects of Y chromosomal hyperploidy in Drosophila melanogaster, and their relation to variegation. Genetics 41: 242-264. Lemos B., Araripe L.O., Hartl D.L. 2008. Polymorphic Y chromosomes harbor cryptic variation with manifold functional consequences. Science 319: 91-93. Lemos B., Branco A.T., Hartl D.L. 2010. Epigenetic effects of polymorphic Y chromosomes modulate chromatin components, immune response, and sexual conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (U.S.A.) 107: 15826-15831. Sackton T.B., Montenegro H., Hartl D.L., Lemos B. 2011. Interspecific Y chromosome introgressions disrupt testis-specific gene expression and male reproductive phenotypes in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (U.S.A.) 108: 17046-17051. Sackton T.B., Hartl D.L. 2013. Meta-analysis reveals that genes regulated by the Y chromosome in Drosophila melanogaster are preferentially localized to repressive chromatin. Genome Biology and Evolution 5: 255-266. Brown E.J., Nguyen A.H., Bachtrog D. 2020. The Drosophila Y chromosome affects heterochromatin integrity genome-wide. Molecular Biology and Evolution (in press). See references in Brown et al., 2020.
Photo: Drosophila melanogaster, an engaging fly, by Sanjay Acharya / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-04--Neil deGrasse Tyson and Cosmos Peddle the Myth that Copernicus Demoted Earth

In episode 8 of the new Cosmos season , “ Possible Worlds , ” host Neil deGrasse Tyson finally delivered a favorite bit of wrong revisionist history : the claim that astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus ( 1473–1543 ) demoted humans from the privileged center of the universe and thereby challenged religious doctrines about human importance .
“ Demoting the earth from the center of the universe was a severe blow to human self-esteem , ” he claims on the episode , which aired this past Monday .
( For reviews of previous episodes , see the bottom of this post .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ voices peddling this trope .
Atheist Christopher Hitchens , for instance , called Christianity ’ s earth-centered cosmology its “ greatest failure.
” But in this case the atheists failed to do their homework .
I break it down in my book , Unbelievable : 7 Myths about the History and Future of Science and Religion .
Copernicus , a canon in the Catholic Church , did indeed challenge an earth-centered cosmology , but he considered his sun-centered astronomical model to be compatible with Christianity .
Indeed , he declared on one occasion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cosmos “ for our sake.
” Most other early modern advocates of heliocentric astronomy similarly affirmed the harmony of the Bible with the new astronomy .
The myth that Copernicus demoted humans assumes that premodern geocentricism ( earth-centered astronomy ) exalted humankind .
But according to the geocentric view of the ancient Greeks — widely accepted well into the 17th century — earth was at the bottom of the universe , the dregs .
“ Up ” pointed to the exalted , incorruptible cosmic heaven .
Thus could Galileo , in the century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will prove that the Earth does have motion … and that it is not the sump where the universe ’ s filth and ephemera collect.
” The idea that Copernicus demoted humans and thus challenged religion was invented in the mid 1600s as an anti-Christian narrative .
By the mid 1800s the myth had entered astronomy textbooks , and by the 1960s it had become textbook orthodoxy .
The latest edition of this narrative enlists the discovery that exotic dark matter may predominate in the universe .
“ It is interesting to consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth-centered view of the universe in our exploration of galaxies , ” write Stephen Schneider and Thomas Arny in a college textbook : We have learned that the Sun lies in the outskirts of a galaxy , which is not a particularly significant galaxy , which is in a minor cluster of galaxies .
And now we are realizing that the kind of matter that makes up everything we know is just a minor kind of matter in the universe .
This is the Copernican revolution taken to extremes !
This is subjective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could just as easily have declared humans unimportant owing to our bodies being composed mostly of common , humdrum hydrogen , oxygen , and carbon .
“ See , there ’ s nothing special about the material me !
” Thus , one could invoke either the commonness or rarity of our material composition as grounds for our unimportance .
Humans are losers either way : heads or tails .
It ’ s a rigged game , not a serious argument for a godless view of life and the cosmos .
Some atheistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to salvage some meaning and dignity from the Copernican “ demotion.
” For example , in his book Astrophysics for People in a Hurry , Neil Tyson argues that despite a series of scientific discoveries humiliating to humankind , we can still find meaning and purpose because “ the cosmic perspective is spiritual — even redemptive — but not religious.
” Tyson insists the Copernican demotion story is redemptive because it saves us from religious ignorance : “ The cosmic perspective opens our eyes to the universe , not as a benevolent cradle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cold , lonely , hazardous place… .
The day our knowledge of the cosmos ceases to expand , we risk regressing to the childish view that the universe figuratively and literally revolves around us.
” Tyson ’ s Cosmos series will broadcast this spiritual atheism to middle school and high school .
How so ?
Darwin is said to be the “ greatest spiritual teacher of the last 1000 years.
” He “ worshiped nature , ” Tyson proclaims approvingly .
“ Life is an emergent property of chemistry .
Science is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin to know itself.
” But Tyson ’ s anthropomorphized ( allegedly conscious and rational ) bees and trees can ’ t do science , so we are special after all in the spirituality of the new cosmic atheism .
We figured out we ’ re insignificant — provided we conflate significance with size and geometric centrality ; and this somehow renders us significant ?
This is confused atheist sentimentality masquerading as scientific rigor .
Such ridiculous thinking shouldn ’ t shock us , in light of mythologist Gregory Schrempp ’ s study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ show that reality as envisioned by science compensates for the loss of the fantasies allegedly offered by myth , ” accomplished , he argues “ through the construction of a new myth.
” This is a dead-end path and , indeed , once we ’ ve done our homework , a most Unbelievable one .
Editor ’ s note : Find further reviews and commentary on the third season of Cosmos , “ Possible Worlds , ” here : • “ Medicine , Religion , and Cosmos — Was Andrew Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Cosmos Episode 6 — That ’ s Entertainment !
( But Is It Science ? )
” • “ The Biggest Myth So Far in Cosmos 3.0 — Baruch Spinoza as Science Hero ” • “ New Cosmos Episodes : Only Part of the Story ” • “ Counterprogramming for Cosmos 3.0 : Two New Videos from Science Historian Mike Keas ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 Revisits Themes of the Past , with Familiar Historical Mythmaking ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 with Neil deGrasse Tyson Arrives Tonight at 8 PM , Somewhat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trailer for Cosmos 3.0 , “ Possible Worlds .
”

In episode 8 of the new Cosmos season, “Possible Worlds,” host Neil deGrasse Tyson finally delivered a favorite bit of wrong revisionist history: the claim that astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) demoted humans from the privileged center of the universe and thereby challenged religious doctrines about human importance. “Demoting the earth from the center of the universe was a severe blow to human self-esteem,” he claims on the episode, which aired this past Monday. (For reviews of previous episodes, see the bottom of this post.)
Tyson is among a chorus of voices peddling this trope. Atheist Christopher Hitchens, for instance, called Christianity’s earth-centered cosmology its “greatest failure.” But in this case the atheists failed to do their homework. I break it down in my book, Unbelievable: 7 Myths about the History and Future of Science and Religion.
The Real Copernicus
Copernicus, a canon in the Catholic Church, did indeed challenge an earth-centered cosmology, but he considered his sun-centered astronomical model to be compatible with Christianity. Indeed, he declared on one occasion that God had “framed” the cosmos “for our sake.” Most other early modern advocates of heliocentric astronomy similarly affirmed the harmony of the Bible with the new astronomy.
The myth that Copernicus demoted humans assumes that premodern geocentricism (earth-centered astronomy) exalted humankind. But according to the geocentric view of the ancient Greeks — widely accepted well into the 17th century — earth was at the bottom of the universe, the dregs. “Up” pointed to the exalted, incorruptible cosmic heaven.
Thus could Galileo, in the century after Copernicus, write, “I will prove that the Earth does have motion … and that it is not the sump where the universe’s filth and ephemera collect.”
Distorting Copernicus
The idea that Copernicus demoted humans and thus challenged religion was invented in the mid 1600s as an anti-Christian narrative. By the mid 1800s the myth had entered astronomy textbooks, and by the 1960s it had become textbook orthodoxy.
The latest edition of this narrative enlists the discovery that exotic dark matter may predominate in the universe. “It is interesting to consider how far we have moved from our Earth-centered view of the universe in our exploration of galaxies,” write Stephen Schneider and Thomas Arny in a college textbook:
We have learned that the Sun lies in the outskirts of a galaxy, which is not a particularly significant galaxy, which is in a minor cluster of galaxies. And now we are realizing that the kind of matter that makes up everything we know is just a minor kind of matter in the universe. This is the Copernican revolution taken to extremes!
This is subjective spin, not rigorous science. One could just as easily have declared humans unimportant owing to our bodies being composed mostly of common, humdrum hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. “See, there’s nothing special about the material me!” Thus, one could invoke either the commonness or rarity of our material composition as grounds for our unimportance. Humans are losers either way: heads or tails. It’s a rigged game, not a serious argument for a godless view of life and the cosmos.
Spiritual Atheism
Some atheistic astronomers, I should note, attempt to salvage some meaning and dignity from the Copernican “demotion.” For example, in his book Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, Neil Tyson argues that despite a series of scientific discoveries humiliating to humankind, we can still find meaning and purpose because “the cosmic perspective is spiritual — even redemptive — but not religious.”
Tyson insists the Copernican demotion story is redemptive because it saves us from religious ignorance: “The cosmic perspective opens our eyes to the universe, not as a benevolent cradle designed to nurture life but as a cold, lonely, hazardous place…. The day our knowledge of the cosmos ceases to expand, we risk regressing to the childish view that the universe figuratively and literally revolves around us.”
Tyson’s Cosmos series will broadcast this spiritual atheism to middle school and high school. How so? Darwin is said to be the “greatest spiritual teacher of the last 1000 years.” He “worshiped nature,” Tyson proclaims approvingly. “Life is an emergent property of chemistry. Science is an emergent property of life. Life can begin to know itself.” But Tyson’s anthropomorphized (allegedly conscious and rational) bees and trees can’t do science, so we are special after all in the spirituality of the new cosmic atheism.
We figured out we’re insignificant — provided we conflate significance with size and geometric centrality; and this somehow renders us significant?
This is confused atheist sentimentality masquerading as scientific rigor. Such ridiculous thinking shouldn’t shock us, in light of mythologist Gregory Schrempp’s study demonstrating that popular science writing often tries to “show that reality as envisioned by science compensates for the loss of the fantasies allegedly offered by myth,” accomplished, he argues “through the construction of a new myth.”
This is a dead-end path and, indeed, once we’ve done our homework, a most Unbelievable one.
Editor’s note: Find further reviews and commentary on the third season of Cosmos, “Possible Worlds,” here:
Image: A screenshot from the trailer for Cosmos 3.0, “Possible Worlds.”