Academic Freedom Loses Again

By Regis Nicoll

For those who think that the object of science is to follow the truth wherever it leads, there’s this in from the AP: “Some scientists are urging Florida's Legislature to reject a bill that would protect teachers from being fired if they present information challenging evolution.”

If you’re wondering why any scientific theory should be immune from criticism in institutions which are supposedly training young people for critical thinking, it’s because the stalwarts of science orthodoxy have proclaimed, ex academia, that evolution is “a scientific fact” and that its alternative, Intelligent Design, is “religion posing as science.” Neither is true.

ID is a research program to discover, scientifically, whether the design in nature, universally acknowledged in the scientific community, is actual or merely apparent. ID does not deny the validity of evolutionary processes—only that naturalistic mechanisms alone are unable to account for the complexity of life. ID is based on scientific criteria and empirical data, similar to that used in fields like: archaeology, to determine the authenticity of human artifacts; forensics, to distinguish death by natural causes from murder; and cryptography, to decide whether a collection of symbols is random string of characters or a message of human origin. ID does not attempt to answer or address whether the designer is divine or extraterrestrial, mortal or immortal, or of natural or supernatural origin. The only attribute ID is concerned with is intelligence. Hence, contrary to all the fear-mongering since Dover, there is no religion being smuggled in with ID.

Darwinian evolution is another story. Despite the exercised assertions of the evolutionary establishment, Darwinian evolution is not a fact; it's a theory, and not a particularly scientific one at that, for several reasons: 

1. The evidence trotted out in its support is fraught with holes (the fossil record), frauds (Haeckel’s embryology, fake fossils, staged peppered moths), intelligently designed and controlled experiments (Urey-Miller) or just-so stories to explain how a frog could turn into prince after eons of random variation, adaptation and natural selection.

2. Everything it foists as a product of common descent—e.g., similarities in morphology and genomes—is better explained as a product of common design.

3. Its essential feature, macro-evolution, has never been observed or reproduced even in micro-organisms whose explosive rates of replication should virtually guarantee its validity. Thus, it has no predictive power and, consequently, has not contributed to a sinlge technological or medical advance since it was conjectured 150 years ago.

4. In fact, Darwinian evolution has a tendency to be a science-stopper, as evidenced by the establishment’s readiness to label apparent inert portions of DNA (expected by the theory) as “junk.” As it turns out, those “inert” regions of DNA are increasingly being found essential in direct or indirect gene expression.

5. It is not dictated by the evidence or the science, or by reason of its technological usefulness, but by…theology. That’s right!

For those whose theology makes no room for God or the supernatural, naturalistic evolution promises to answer those BIG metaphysical questions of “How did I get here?” “And who am I?”

For others who desire a moral universe, but want to exonerate the Law-Giver from any culpability for the existence of evil, theistic evolution gives them a not-so omnipotent or sovereign God who set things in motion, but has nary a clue as to how they’ll turn out or how to set the course straight. And since he’s not in total control, it turns out that he’s not too particular about those morals either.

If you doubt the religious underpinnings of Darwinism consider its:

Patron saint: Charles Darwin
Founding text: On the Origin of Species
Magisterium: The National Academy of Science
Holy day: Darwin Day
Sacred relics: humanoid fossils
Evangelists: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott. Kenneth Miller
Religious symbol: the Darwin fish plaque, available in assorted styles and colors.

And--as this news item exposes, yet again--its unpardonable sin: “Putting other theories before Darwin.”

Comments

[pete]

just... Wow. You're a special kind of stupid. Unfortunately, not special enough. I'd dissect this if there was even a kernel of understanding anywhere in this post, but no. Just lousy with real stupid.

[Regis Nicoll]

I don't deny that I may need help with the finer points of this argument; but I doubt that someone who believes that "Just lousy with real stupid" is a sentence, is the person for the job.

[Anthony]

Unlike Pete, I thought the post "Academic Freedom Loses Again" was actually a pretty good summary of the very real problems any skeptic should find with Darwinian evolution. Especially the point about macroevolution: considering how there have been more malarial organisms in the past 100 years than there have been mammals in all time (that stat is I believe from "The Edge of Evolution" by Behe, correct me if I got it wrong), you would think that malaria would have evolved a little more than just resistance to chloroquinine and the various other drugs to which it is resistant. Especially considering the extreme competition it has had to have for survival, what with the constant human efforts to eradicate it. Makes you think.

[Regis Nicoll]

Anthony--Exactly. In the microbiology lab researchers have access to billions of organisms whose rapid replication allows follow-up for many thousands of generations. One such organism is Plasmodium Falciparum, the single-celled parasite responsible for malaria.

For several decades, researchers have studied Plasmodium Falciparum, applying various environmental pressures to see how it responds. Yet after trillions upon trillions of replications—many more than occurred in the evolution of fish to mammals—the bacterium never evolved into a multi-celled organism. It remained what it had always been: a single-celled parasite which, in some cases, developed a resistance to anti-biotic drugs.

Moving up the "tree-of-life", as I learned in my post-grad work in radiobiology, after nearly one century of study on a gazillion generations of drosophila subjected the mutational effects of radiation, researchers observed only three things: unchanged flies, deformed flies or dead flies.

So the next time you hear "Evolution is fact"...

[tom]

good post. evolution is a religion, and they worship the hairy god of evolution, darwin. He could do no wrong, according to evolutionists, and darwiniacs refuse to acknowledge evolution's complicity with eugenics, naziism, etc. Even darwin's obviously racist statements are ignored.

the 'science' of evolution is as follows:

1) assume evolution
2) observe a fact
3) fit it into an evolutionary just-so story

[Prhean]

Tom, here are two more:

4) Suppress disagreement. Crush it if possible.

5) If that is not possible, resort to insults. Write or say things like this:

"Wow. You're a special kind of stupid. Unfortunately, not special enough. I'd dissect this if there was even a kernel of understanding anywhere in this post, but no. Just lousy with real stupid."

[pete]

Okay, I fell upon this site by accident, and I won't troll here any longer, but just to address a few points:

"Lousy with..."

So I went with an outdated idiom. I didn't realize this was a complete-sentences-only site.

1. No, it's not. I don't base anything on fake fossils either. Or fake anything for that matter. The evidence is overwhelming. One needs but to walk outside and look around to see it.

2. I'm not crazy about the "better explained" phrasing, but let's just say that it is. That still begs the question, "Whence the designer?". But I guess we don't have to answer that, because the designer just is. Convenient.

3. We're going to disagree on this one, but for argument's sake, what's the predictive power of your alternative hypothesis? Biblical codes? You have none. (And what specifically is it that you think evo theory should be predicting?)

4. Wait! There are still areas of genetics that aren't completely understood? Egad! Just for kicks, cite a reference.

5. For those whose theology makes no room for the supernatural, well, it's not theology by definition. I desire a flying carpet, but that doesn't mean the universe is going to provide one for me. In turn, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with desiring that the universe behave in such a manner, as long as you recognize the fact that it doesn't.

There is nothing religious about science. Feel free to yammer on about NOMA, but don't try to tar evo theory with the religious brush. Science is not susceptible to the failings of religion. That's why it works.

Anthony:

Keep thinking.

Regis2:

Billions! Trillions!! Gazillions!!! Were these "researchers" from the DI? Again, please cite the actual findings of the research. I'll wager it reads a bit differently than, "Observed: unchanged flies, deformed flies, dead flies".

Tom:

What is it about eugenics and naziism that refutes evo theory? I'm guessing there's going to be some gnashing about morality that won't address the science at all. Also, I find the notion that evolution has characteristics such that it can be complicit in anything fascinating.

1. Posit something other than goddidit. Show your work.

2. Excruciatingly worthless.

3. "Just-so" is a much more apt description of POOF! intelligent design! than evo theory. By, like, a gazillion.

Cheers!

[Regis Nicoll]

Pete—1) While YOU may not “base anything on fake fossils,” the legacy of Piltdown man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, et al, and thriving “fossil” businesses in places China suggests that others in the Darwinian establishment may not be so critical; 2) You ask “Whence the designer?”, I ask “Whence particles…or the quantum vacuum…or the multiverse…or super-advanced ET’s (a favorite of Sagan, Crick, Hoyle, and even Dawkins). You may not be crazy about the “better explained” criterion, but that’s the question we’re all left with. For folks who think that the Rosetta Stone is best understood as product of intelligent beings rather than as an artifact of quantum jitters, wind erosion and cosmic radiation absorption, naturalistic explanations for the information content of DNA should be an even further reach; 3) the predictive power of design lies in teleology: that is, “design” predicts function and purpose that may or may not be immediately discernible (ex. “junk” DNA). Darwinism, on the other hand, because it is unguided and not teleological, is intrinsically non-predictive; 4) So, are you suggesting that all the “science is in” in genetics? Although the human genome has been mapped, one of the big remaining projects is figuring out what all the DNA segments do, and how genetic and epigenetic processes produce phenotypes; 5) Science is devoid of religion? You might want to inform Dr. Carolyn Porco (Cassini project scientist). She proposes a “Church of Latter Day Scientists” replete with ceremonies, communal worship, rituals (including baptism!), missionaries, apostles, and even its own sacred sites: research labs, particle accelerators, and observatories. There would be worship centers (museums, planetaria and lecture halls). It would use the media to spread the “word”-- extolling the genius of Darwin and showcasing the elegance of evolution. (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_8.html#porco)
Finally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If macro-evolution HAS occurred, it’s up to proponents to document what new species have been observed in lab experiments with drosophilia, P. Falciparum, or any other rapid replicating organism.

[pete]

You left out "strawman". Oh, wait. No, you didn't. Science disregards hoaxes in the same way that it disposes of any other hypotheses that are disproven.

I ask, "Whence particles?" too. The difference is, I answer, "I don't know. Yet." instead of "I don't know, so it must be the clever workings of an almighty." Maybe we'll never know, but that still does nothing to increase the likelihood of a designer.

"“design” predicts function and purpose that may or may not be immediately discernible"

Um, what? Which one is it? There is no predictive function here. If you want to buy into the hubris of the teleological argument, have it your way. I see no evidence for it. As to junk DNA, see "I don't know" above. Still seems like you've got the cart before the horse here.

4: No. It seems that you are.

5: Surely you're not suggesting that... No, you couldn't possibly be suggesting something so transparent.

"Finally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Yes, and I'm sure you're familiar with the Dawkins et al position on the matter with which I concur. It's up to proponents of a designer to document any evidence of its existence whatsoever. There is none, nor is there any measure by which to test or detect it. If macro-evolution is a stretch of reason, the assumption of an omniscient, omnipotent being is one of the highest order. You can't have it both ways.

[Regis Nicoll]

Pete—Empirically, we know that information—highly complex and specified information—like that found in Microsoft Office only comes from intelligence. Yet, the software and hardware of the biological cell far exceeds that of a Nissan manufacturing plant. In fact, Bill Gates marveled that DNA was more sophisticated than anything his company had ever produced. Just think, if the most highly evolved thing in the cosmos—the human mind—using the collective imagination, creativity, and cognitive power of the brightest software engineers on the planet, is unable to re-create the instructions resident in DNA, then to claim that they could have been cobbled together from a trial-and-error process of random variation and adaptation is against everything known empirically and commonsensically. So while there is sufficient evidence for ID in the information content of biological life, the evidence for materialistic macro-evolution amounts to wishful thinking, just-so stories and tautology: Evolution is fact, Fact, FACT!

[pete]

A compelling argument to be sure, Mr. Gates' software-mogul credentials clearly placing him among the most renowned and prodigious members leading modern peer-reviewed evolutionary biology.

[Jerry]

"It's up to proponents of a designer to document any evidence of its existence whatsoever."

Nature itself seems to me to be the evidence of a designer. You can call it simplistic if you want, but it's no more simplistic than to think that the natural world just sprung up out of nothing. Good luck testing that one out in the lab.

[pete]

That the "world just sprung up out of nothing" is just as simplistic as "something sprung up out of nothing, and it was immediately omnipotent and omniscient and super awesome and then *that* created the universe out of nothing"?

Fo' real?

[Jerry]

K dude. But that just puts it back on you then too. There have been religions and philosophies to try to answer such questions, because it seems that nature (and the study of nature) can only get us so far. But that science has been crowned king of the academy, to the neglect of other fields of learning. Fo' sho.

[pete]

"It seems the study of nature can only get us so far"

That's a little depressing. Have we run out of stuff to explore and study and learn? Isn't it a little early to be making that call? What's the rush?

Hey, maybe there are some things that the study of nature can't bear out, so here's my proposal: Since the study of nature seems to be working pretty good so far, let's exhaust that avenue first. Then and only then will we turn to the supernatural to explain whatever remains unresolved. Deal?

[Jerry]

Well. Don't be sad. I agree that the study of nature is working out pretty good. Can't wait for more. I probably wasn't clear. That statement "the study of nature can only get us so far" only referred to the something from nothing idea that you turned around on me (which is completely fair) but didn't really address yourself. This is just an honest question. Not trying to be dumb or anti-science. Maybe I just have one too many god genes. I can't help it.

[pete]

No worries. I don't know how it all started. No one does. Maybe once the good folks over at CERN get that LHC fired up it'll shed some light on the matter (no puns intended). Then again, maybe it'll be a colossal failure. But I doubt that'll stop scientists from continuing to develop new experiments to find answers for the foreseeable future. Maybe the answer truly is beyond the capabilities of science. But by no means does that cast doubt on the things science can and has already answered or its ability to continue to do so in other areas. In any case, I just don't see the utility and/or urgency in defaulting to an unfounded, untestable supernatural hypothesis, especially when there's a perfectly workable materialistic alternative theory. Or maybe I just lost the god gene.

[Jerry]

"But I doubt that'll stop scientists from continuing to develop new experiments to find answers for the foreseeable future."

Agreed. No reason why concluding "design" or "non-design" should (for lack of better terms).

"Maybe the answer truly is beyond the capabilities of science."

That thought it not beyond the realm of reason or reasonable people.

"when there's a perfectly workable materialistic alternative theory"

Maybe. But it only goes so far. Definitely doesn't explain any of the questions away. It'd be nice if it really did.

[Regis Nicoll]

Of course, one thing that is ontologically closed to scientific investigation is what preceded the Big Bang. The possible answers are: 1) nothing, 2) the quantum vacuum (a lofty, sciency term for "nothing"), or 3) an Aristotelian "First Cause"--namely, a non-contingent Intelligence.

Positing the first two is analagous to proposing that a Hummer could be engineered without the aid of metal, blueprints or an engineer. Kinda like having a rabbit materialize from a hat without a hat or a person to "pull it out." In other words, magic in the truest sense!

[pete]

Right. The Universe needs a first cause and "Intelligence" doesn't, I can only assume because it's conveniently "non-contingent" (wtf that means).

Whatever. Even given a n-cI as a prime mover, all that does is open the door for the possibility of biological design on Earth - that something exists that *could* be responsible for design. It still wouldn't rule out evolution as the cause for biological diversity.

But I'll leave you to your double standards.

[Regis Nicoll]

Pete--What rules out evolution by natural selection, is its own requirements--for selection to occur, there has to be something to “select.” And that something is genes--regions of DNA that consist of thousands to hundreds of thousands of base molecules arranged in a precise sequence. In fact, the chance of getting the correct sequence of molecules by happenstance is about one in ten to the thousandth power, even for the smallest gene. (About the same odds as landing heads on three thousand consecutive coin flips!)

But what if the base molecules were shuffled not once, but repeatedly? For a 15-billion-year-old universe, there has been about 10 to the 17th seconds for nature to get the arrangement right. According to quantum theory, each of those seconds can be divided into 10 to the 43rd moments of time (known as Planck time), giving nature a whopping 10 to the 60th chances to win the “gene lotto.” And, if the shuffling process occurred in every one of the 10 to the 80th particles in the universe then nature’s chance of success is 10 to the 140th--far less than what than the 10 to the 1000th needed. And none that accounts for the time it would take for the building blocks of matter (quarks and leptons) to form atoms; and atoms to form the molecules necessary to create something to shuffle.

Which again is evidence that Intelligence is not only a sufficient cause of the highly integrated complexity of life; but a necessary one.