Rebutting Darwinists: (Survey shows 2/3 of Scientists Believe in God)

I suggested here last week that the established authorities of every age act consistently. They become vigilantly militant against non-conforming dissidents who challenge their assumptions.

Thus when the dissident Galileo challenged the assumptions of the 17th century papacy, it shut him up. Now when the advocates of "intelligent design" challenge the scientific establishment's assumptions about "natural selection," it moves aggressively to shut them up. So the I.D. people have this in common with Galileo.

I received a dozen letters on this, three in mild agreement, the rest in scorn and outrage. This calls for a response.

Where, one reader demanded, did I get the information that 10 percent of scientists accept intelligent design? I got it from a National Post (newspaper) article published two years ago, which said that 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Science "consider themselves atheists." Since if you're not an atheist, you allow for the possibility of a Mind or Intelligence behind nature, this puts 10 percent in the I.D. camp.

I could have gone further. A survey last year by Rice University, financed by the Templeton Foundation, found that about two-thirds of scientists believed in God. A poll published by Gallup in 1997 asked: Do you believe that "man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation?" – essentially the I.D. position. Just under 40 percent of scientists said yes. So perhaps my 10 percent was far too low.

Two readers called my attention to a discovery last week on an Arctic island of something which may be the fossil remains of the mysteriously missing "transitional species." Or then maybe it isn't transitional. Maybe it's a hitherto undetected species on its own.

But the very exuberance with which such a discovery is announced argues the I.D. case. If Darwin was right, and the change from one species to another through natural selection occurred constantly in millions of instances over millions of years, then the fossil record should be teaming with transitional species. It isn't. That's why even one possibility, after many years of searching, becomes front-page news.

Another letter complains that I.D. cannot be advanced as even a theory unless evidence of the nature of this "Divine" element is presented. But the evidence is in nature itself. The single cell shows such extraordinary complexity that to suggest it came about by sheer accident taxes credulity. If you see a footprint in the sand, that surely evidences human activity. The demand – "Yes, but whose footprint is it?"– does not disqualify the contention that somebody was there. "Nope," says the establishment, "not until you can tell us who it was will we let you raise this question in schools."

Another reader argues that Galileo stood for freedom of inquiry, whereas I.D. advocates want to suppress inquiry. This writer apparently did not notice what caused me to write the column. It was the rejection by a government agency for a $40,000 grant to a McGill University anti-I.D. lobby to suppress the presentation and discussion of I.D. theory in the Canadian schools. Suppressing discussion is an odd way of encouraging "freedom of inquiry." Anyway, the I.D. movement doesn't want to suppress evolution. It merely wants it presented as a theory, alongside the I.D. theory.

Why, asked another reader, did I not identify the gutsy woman who stated the reason for the rejection, bringing upon herself the scorn of scientific authority. That's fair. Her name is Janet Halliwell, a chemist and executive vice president of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. She said that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and the McGill application offered no evidence to support it.

The McGill applicant was furious. Evolution, he said, needs no evidence. It's fact. Apparently Harvard University doesn't quite agree with him. The Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to discover how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth. In the 150 years since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the process began."

The most sensible letter came from a research scientist. "I think that the current paradigm of evolution by natural selection acting on random variation will change," he writes. "I think that evidence will accumulate to suggest that much of the genetic variation leading to the evolution of life on earth was not random, but was generated by biochemical processes that exhibit intelligent behavior."

Then he urges me not to disclose his identity. Saying this publicly would threaten his getting tenure, he fears. Galileo would understand.

Let me see if I get your drift. You admit that selection is a powerful shaping tool, but in its unattended mode it looks icky.

Well take a look around. Look, for example, at the bacterial flagellum, the poster child of design. It's main "purpose" seems to be killing infants and children.

What immortal hand or eye
Framed its fearful symmetry?

ID really frames the question like this: The shape of living things is the result of the observed processes, unguided, or of observed processes, guided. There is no footprint of the guiding hand; it is invisible, like Adam Smith's. But you can choose to believe that a designer lavished loving attention on the bacterial flagellum if you really need to believe in that kind of thing. No one can prove you wrong.

ID really frames the question like this . . .

You didn't even posit a question. The questions ID frames are: "How did God (or nature) do it?" "How does God (or nature) do it?" One may also come at the presence of organized matter performing specific functions from a totally different perspective, namely, "What, or who, is responsible for this?" Or one may simply observe, measure, and categorize the physical world without regard to any of those questions. It is the nature of man in his present state, however, to put the details into a bigger picture, and thus subscribe to one faith or another.

If I've misunderstood you, I shall be pleased to be corrected. If not, then you're a darn fine troll, but the jig is up.

Let me assert that you have misunderstood and can, therefore, be pleased. However, if I were a “troll” I assume that whatever you said was a compliment. Thanks, I think…

Directly to the point: “I” did not say that evolution is “hand waving and semantics.” What was said was that “some” could reasonably raise that objection on the basis of poorly defined terms. Logically, if advocates cannot agree on what a species is, then how can those who would oppose them be expected accept the advocates’ position.

Are you contending that mutation does not occur?

No.

Are you contending that the fitter individuals don't more frequently survive and pass their genes to the next generation?

I have made no such statements. However, some others (advocates of evolution on this thread, I assume) have done so, at least indirectly. To wit: … Species evolve regardless of selection pressure…

Are you contending that, over time, this process won't change the gene pool?

Again, I have made no such assertion. However, some others have stated that the changes in the gene pool are irrational as opposed to driven by “survival of the fittest.” To wit: Natural selection and sexual selection are not about any "rational" criteria…

From these questions and comments (none of which are mine), I think you can begin to grasp the situation.

Because you don't agree with anything that evolution says, oh, like the non-fixity of species, or common descent.

The non-fixity of species has already been observed in real time. How can I disagree with it? Common descent has also been observed in the present day. So has change on a wide scale among populations, sometimes due to genetic variation and natural selection. How can I disagree with that?

No, [it is not a requirement of theistic evolutionists to reject the accuracy and authority of biblical texts] but you can't take Genesis literally and be an evolutionist of any stripe.

To begin with, you see from the above that I subscribe to the tenets of evolution to some degree. My only questions regard the limits within which evolution takes place. I also subscrbe to the literal accuracy of the biblical texts, including a creation that only took seven literal days. Due to my literal understanding of the biblical texts you say I cannot be an evolutionist of any stripe, but that plainly does not follow. I am a theistic evolutionist.

To wit: … Species evolve regardless of selection pressure…

I'm pretty sure that it was you that I explained this too. Natural selection is not the only mechanism for evolution. Genetic drift also drives evolution. Due to genetic drift a species can evolve (the frequency of alleles in the population can change) and species can diverge. I'm afraid using this as an objection to the theory of evolution just makes you look like you don't really know what you're talking about.

Due to my literal understanding of the biblical texts you say I cannot be an evolutionist of any stripe, but that plainly does not follow. I am a theistic evolutionist.

I'm also a theistic evolutionist, but apparently of a very different stripe. In your mind, what drives selection and mutation? If your answer is God, you're not necessarily wrong (although I think you are), but you have to understand that your view is outside of the answerable purview of science.

"The non-fixity of species has already been observed in real time. How can I disagree with it?"

YEC says otherwise. By *non-fixity* I am saying there is no magical barrier that stops a population from continuing to diverge from the parent species. You don't accept that.

"Common descent has also been observed in the present day."

Don't be coy. You know I am talking about common descent of all life (though the picture could be fuzzier at the tree). For example, that we share a common ancestor with apes goes against YEC. Yet, it is a claim of evolutionary theory. You don't accept that.

"To begin with, you see from the above that I subscribe to the tenets of evolution to some degree."

And I have shown you don't.

"My only questions regard the limits within which evolution takes place."

Uh huh.

" I also subscrbe to the literal accuracy of the biblical texts, including a creation that only took seven literal days."

That rules out evolutionary theory. The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

"Due to my literal understanding of the biblical texts you say I cannot be an evolutionist of any stripe, but that plainly does not follow. I am a theistic evolutionist."

No your not. You're a YEC, which cannot be reconciled with evolutionary theory. You can't keep rewriting the definition of words. They already had meanings.

Species evolve regardless of selection pressure…

Again you are demonstrating your unfamiliarity with the territory. Change in a population does indeed occur in populations regardless of selective pressure. That is because many mutations are negligible in their effect. It would be unusual, or very slow for such drift to result in new species, unless a population is split by some barrier.

Again,you are thrashing around, looking for a gotcha. If you were honestly looking for information, you would be reading books by experts that specifically address your questions. You might then ask for clarification.

Instead, when you have been confronted with an actual technical answer, you brush it off and move on to the next question on your list.

Let me see if I get your drift. You admit that selection is a powerful shaping tool, but in its unattended mode it looks icky.

Let me apologize. I think I failed to make myself clear. I have never postulated that selection as a part of evolution had to be “attended.” What I have done is pointed out that evolution’s basic postulate of mutation and “natural selection” based upon “survival of the fittest” does not support the concept of “random selection.” If this fits the definition of icky, perhaps it is. Nonetheless, that work is not mine.

Well take a look around. Look, for example, at the bacterial flagellum, the poster child of design. It's main "purpose" seems to be killing infants and children.

No argument from me.

ID really frames the question like this… No one can prove you wrong.

I think if you will review my posts, you will find that I mentioned intelligent design in relation to humans “selecting” breeding stock to modify naturally occurring organisms into something that would not otherwise have come to exist through “natural selection.” I have not advocated intelligent design otherwise in our discussions at all.

What I have done is pose questions concerning evolution originally attempting to determine if a statistical correlation exists relating mutation rate, natural selection pressures and the emergence of new species. Outside of one poster referring me to some mathematical work by R. A. Fischer, I have no luck in even getting a firm definition of terms, let alone, unambiguous, measurable quantities.

I simply accept that God engineered the creation to include genetic drift within limits, or that this phenomena is effected by what the biblical texts denote as the fall and its consequences. To say this notion is outside the purview of science to apply to me what you are unwilling apply to yourself, namely a shaping principle which in and of itself is indeed beyond the purview of empirical science.

I do not think your point of view to be stupid or unreasonable or even unscientific. It is a piece of cake to take up the same "explanations" you have and entertain them for a while. Ultimately, however, it is my opinion that too much matter behaves too consistently to be a product of unguided forces of nature. Call it religion or philosophy if you will. When you get to making statements about the general nature of what you observe, please allow me the courtesy of calling it philosophy, too.

In short, you cannot object to the idea of intelligent design on the basis of empirical science. Neither can I object to the idea of a happenstance universe on the same basis.

…Natural selection is not the only mechanism for evolution. Genetic drift also drives evolution…

If we agree that “natural selection” as posited in the theory of evolution is the operation of “survival of the fittest” based upon survival advantages conferred by mutations, then we have no disagreement on this term. I suppose there could be some additional discussion about the variation in pressure from natural selection, but no disagreement as to its place in the theory of evolution.

However, for the second term, let me see if I understand what you are positing here: “Genetic drift” which is the appearance of purely random mutations operated upon by purely “arbitrary” selection mechanisms produces new species.

Are my statements essential correct?

YEC says otherwise. By *non-fixity* I am saying there is no magical barrier . . .

The biblical texts do not specifically address fixity of species except with the words "according to their kind." Science has a hard time defining what constitutes a "species" let alone a "kind." I figure there will be some latitude amidst kinds, much as the human race as observed today contains everything from dwarfs to giants; white to black, and much in between. The biblical texts would not propose any kind of "magical barriers." God is the source of everything natural, just the way it is.

For example, that we share a common ancestor with apes goes against YEC.

Not really. A Common Creator will quite obviously produce a result that could be construed as common descent. As for the history involved, yes, I disagree. And that is because no record of history denotes a gradual progression from ape forms to human forms. The best evidence is always in fossils and bones for some reason, but never in written records by those who themselves conduct science, namely humans.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

While that assertion resides within the hearts of many, it has not been empirically proven. Take some time to study the nature and concept of time, and put it together with quantum mechanics. What we are faced with in this life is too tentative to make an assertion such as yours as if it were a hard boiled fact.

At bottom, I fit the definition of theistic evolutionist, but if you care to strip me of that title I will not be ashamed in the least.

" The biblical texts do not specifically address fixity of species except with the words "according to their kind."

But YEC says that there is a built in limit to variation. Evolution says there isn't.

" Science has a hard time defining what constitutes a "species" let alone a "kind." "

There is no way to define a *kind* scientifically, as it has no real world meaning. The biological species concept, while not exact, does describe a real biological population.

"I figure there will be some latitude amidst kinds, much as the human race as observed today contains everything from dwarfs to giants; white to black, and much in between."

Are they all different *kinds*?

"The biblical texts would not propose any kind of "magical barriers."

Then why do YEC's say there is?

" Not really. A Common Creator will quite obviously produce a result that could be construed as common descent. "

I didn't say construed, I said is. Universal common descent goes against YEC.

"As for the history involved, yes, I disagree."

Then you are not an evolutionist, of any type.

"The best evidence is always in fossils and bones for some reason, but never in written records by those who themselves conduct science, namely humans."

Why would hominid evolution be in written records when writing is a recent human invention?
BTW, the best evidence is in the genes, not the bones.

" While that assertion resides within the hearts of many, it has not been empirically proven."

But the evidence for it is overwhelming. It is also an important corollary to evolutionary theory, and is anathema to YEC. You reject an old earth, you are not an evolutionist.

" Take some time to study the nature and concept of time, and put it together with quantum mechanics. "

And? What does quantum mechanics and the study of time say about the age of the Earth?

"What we are faced with in this life is too tentative to make an assertion such as yours as if it were a hard boiled fact."

Nonsense. Why is your assertion any better?

" At bottom, I fit the definition of theistic evolutionist,"

Except that you reject evolution.

" but if you care to strip me of that title I will not be ashamed in the least."

The title was never yours to begin with. Your attempt to redefine words is not convincing anybody.

“Genetic drift” which is the appearance of purely random mutations operated upon by purely “arbitrary” selection mechanisms produces new species.

No. The method of emergence of new genes and alleles is a separate consideration.

Genetic drift is a stochastic process in which the frequency of alleles in a population changes due to chance fluctuations in the percent of alleles passed on.

An allele is a functional DNA sequence that can occur in a gene. So with Mendel's experiments his pea plants had a gene for height; one allele produced tall plants while the other produced short plants.

Suppose there are alleles A and B in a population, at 60% and 40% respectively. In the absence of natural selection we would expect them to remain at 60% and 40% indefinitely. However, in each generation the actual rate fluctuates a little bit. So you might see B go to 39% in one generation. Reproduction might continue to give a static distribution for a while longer, and then there might be another random fluctuation to drop B a little bit more. There might be some back and forth, but the tendency with genetic drift is to fix one allele (leave that allele the only one in the breeding population). Eventually B is likely to go to 0%.

Genetic drift chiefly acts upon alleles that are neutral, since selection for or against a gene tends to override genetic drift. However, when a new mutation arises in a population genetic drift is a factor because even if the mutation is beneficial it might just be bred out by chance.

While genetic drift usually works upon distributions of neutral alleles, it can be influential in speciation by amplifying differences that eventually become reproductive barriers. For instance, if you separate two populations of birds genetic drift might modify the song of one population, and then when they are later reintroduced they will be unwilling to mate because the populations' songs are too different. They will have become two different species.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.