Evolution: Dancing on the Titanic

The current evolution/creation controversy is based on two fundamental errors. First, the issue is cast as a conflict between the indisputable facts of science and the dogmatic faith of religious fundamentalists. Second, two entirely different definitions of science are used interchangeably, obscuring the true nature of the discussion.

Facts vs. Faith
Douglas Futuyma opens Science on Trial, his compelling polemic against creationism, with these words: "Fifty-seven years after the Scopes trial, fundamentalist religion and evolutionary biology are again fiercely at odds, and science is still on trial."[1]
Futuyma's words echo the sentiments of the academic rank and file: Creationists are obscurantist flat-earthers whose commitment to superstition keeps them in darkness. The verdict of science is clear. Darwinian evolution is an indisputable fact.

Following the complete failure of the Origin of Life Conference in Berkeley in the late 80's to produce a plausible scenario for how life itself chemically evolved, Dr. Robert Shapiro wrote a book entitled Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth.
("Creation" here refers to biochemical evolution.) Shapiro is an educated skeptic, an eminent chemist from New York University and an expert in his field. In his book he decimates the reigning ideas of how life could have evolved from non-life.

Michael Denton wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis to show that the original scientific objections to evolution that faced Darwin--and were argued powerfully by his contemporaries--still apply after more than 100 years of scientific research and progress.

Both of these books were written by non-religious people raising scientific objections to evolution. Shapiro remains an evolutionist, hoping that the future will turn up more evidence for biochemical evolution than the past has been able to produce. Denton ends his analysis with this statement: "The Darwinian theory is the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century," and then adds, "like the Genesis-based cosmology which it replaced."

You have no friends of religion here. These men are inside of the established scientific community, not outside of it. Yet each offers scientifically rigorous and compelling arguments against the idea that known natural processes are adequate to explain the biological complexity of our world.

Michael Behe is a cellular biologist with impeccable credentials. In his book Darwin's Black Box, he shows that the irreducible complexity of life can't be explained by Darwinian gradualism.

James Shapiro of the University of Chicago, a molecular biologist and a deeply committed evolutionist, made this candid remark in response to Behe's work:

There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject--evolution--with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.[2]

Niles Eldridge, one of the world's leading experts in vertebrate fossils, describes the actual situation paleontologists face:

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yield zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change--over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution."[3]

This problem is so severe it has spawned an entirely new school of evolutionary thinking--punctuated equilibrium, championed by Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould. It's also spawned a bitter feud between Gould's camp and traditional Darwinists like Richard Dawkins who still hold to gradualism in spite of the paucity of fossil evidence for it.

Phillip Johnson has made a fair observation when he states, "If eminent experts say that evolution according to Gould is too confused to be worth bothering about, and others equally eminent say that evolution according to Dawkins rests on unsubstantiated assertions and counterfactual claims, the public can hardly be blamed for suspecting that grand-scale evolution may rest on something less impressive than rock-solid, unimpeachable fact."

We are within our rights to question the stability of the entire enterprise. But the minute we do, we run into a second problem.

Two Faces of Science
Science has two definitions. The first is the most well known. Science is about a methodology--observation, experimentation, testing, etc.--that allows researchers to discover the facts about the world. Presumably, this is what evolution is about--the facts of science. Science in this sense has prompted the litany of concerns expressed above by evolutionists.
The second definition of science involves the philosophy of naturalistic materialism: matter and energy governed by natural law. Any view that doesn't conform to this definition is not scientific.

These two definitions are not always compatible. Evolution is a case in point. At first blush it seems like evolution is about scientific facts. But when facts suggest design, the second definition is invoked. The philosophy always trumps the methodology. That is, any scientific methodology (first definition) that supports intelligent design is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition) as "religion disguised as science."

Futuyma says, "Where science insists on material, mechanistic causes that can be understood by physics and chemistry, the literal believer in Genesis invokes unknowable supernatural forces."[4]

Creationists claim, however, that these forces are knowable, at least in principle. Consider this analogy. When a dead body is discovered, an impartial investigation of the scene might indicate foul play and not accident. In the same way, evidence could, in principle, indicate an agent in creation rather than chance. This is not faith vs. evidence, but evidence vs. evidence.

Notice how Futuyma conflates these definitions in the following statement taken from Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, the most widely used college evolutionary textbook:

The fact is, in a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for supernatural special creation. Belief in special creation must rest on faith, on the authority of the Bible and its most literal interpreters. The fundamental conflict, then, is between two incompatible ways to knowledge. Science emphasizes evidence and logical deduction, and is forever uncertain. It deals not with irrefutable facts engraved on stone tablets, but with hypotheses that may be refuted by tomorrow's experiments and concepts formulated by fallible human minds. The best scientific education encourages skepticism, questioning, independent thought, and the use of reason."[5]

How does Douglas Futuyma know in advance there "can be no evidence for supernatural special creation"? Because it's stipulated by definition. Even if evidence is available, it cannot be allowed. Further, no independent thought regarding the fact of evolution (as opposed to the method of evolution) is allowed either, in spite of Futuyma's assertions to the contrary. Any denial of evolution is simply not "science."

Darwinism as Dogma
Clearly, the paradigm is paramount and everything must be done to save it. Harvard Genetics Professor Richard Lewontin is very candid about this fact. In The New York Review of Books he makes this remarkable admission: Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.[6] [emphasis in the original]

Here Richard Lewontin, distinguished Harvard Genetics Professor, admits that the apparatus of science is not geared to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, but rather to produce philosophically acceptable answers.

Phillip Johnson sums it up: "The reason for opposition to scientific accounts of our origins, according to Lewontin, is not that people are ignorant of facts, but that they have not learned to think from the right starting point."[7]

Presumed Guilty
Once one presumes evolution, many of the pieces seem to fit. If you simply presume someone associated with a crime is guilty, you're bound to find some pieces of evidence that appear incriminating. But if your suspect produces an airtight alibi, you must rework your presumptions.
In the same way, Darwinism has fatal flaws, in spite of some circumstantial evidence for common ancestry. The mechanism (natural selection) is not adequate to do the work it needs to do. Behe and others have made this clear. The gradualist pathways from one transition to another cannot be reconstructed, as Gould has pointed out. Robert Shapiro of NYU admits there is no current evidence that life could come from non-life. Paleontologists can compare fossils all they want, but if evolutionary processes cannot even produce the most basic amino acid sequences necessary for life, then the game can't even get started.

To label creationist efforts as "religious zealots conducting stealth campaigns," as one editorial did, skirts the issue entirely. It is easier to dismiss any objections to evolution as flat-earth religion than to intelligently and fairly engage the facts in public discourse.

Three Errors
The view that "religious" theories should not intrude in science is guilty of a several of logical errors. First, it commits the either/or fallacy by asserting that a view is either scientific or religious. Design models might have some factual support. We see the blending, for example, in near-death experience (NDE) research, or conclusions about the existence of a Creator based on Big Bang cosmology.

Second, it commits the straw-man fallacy by assuming that creationists make no use of scientific methods. This is not the case. Creationists are happy to present an abundance of scientific evidence for their view, if they're allowed. This evidence needs to be addressed instead of disqualified.

Third, it assumes that the reigning scientific views do not have religious significance. This is false. All cosmological views have metaphysical significance. If evolutionary naturalism is true, the only place for God is in the imagination of the faithful.

The author's point seems to be "science doesn't know everything." Ok, I'll go along with that, as will every scientist on earth.

There's two things you can do when you don't know something. You can try to find out, and probably make a few mistakes along the way. Or you can just say, I dunno, God must have done it.

Of course trying to find out *how* something works doesn't rule out God being involved in it.

If people on both sides of this debate would simply agree that science attempts to answer "how" and religon attempts to answer "why", the world would be a lot nicer. It's too bad people keep writing drivel like this with no purpose other dividing people.

Of course this whole issue is perhaps irreversably muddled by the predominance of dogmatists. While there is dispassionate and reasoned work going on all sides of this issue, it tends to get drowned out in the cacophony of dogmatic thundering.

The author correctly alludes to the fact that there are more than two dogmas involved. Within the evolutionist side (usually portrayed as the unified view of the scientific community) exist incompatible paradigms, some more solidly based on the evidence than others. Within the creationist side are divisions within divisions, with the only unifying theme seemingly the presense of a Creator in some way (however solidly or vaguely defined).

Despite the triumphalism of some creationists, evolutionary theory, if understood as dispassionately as other scientific theories, is not seriously in danger. This is because, as a theory, it never meant quite as much as the dogmatists on all sides of the issue (including the evolutionary side) like to believe. It's the extra emotional baggage (things like scientific paradigms, and metaphysical implications) that are shaking. But, as the article above notes, this is taking place within the scientific community itself, regardless of creationism. What's more, it's entirely normal for scientific theories to undergo this sort of shakeup (and it doesn't mean all previous scientific work was a fraud).

Shapiro is an educated skeptic, an eminent chemist from New York University and an expert in his field. In his book he decimates the reigning ideas of how life could have evolved from non-life.

Which has very little to do with evolution. How life began is a separate debate from evolution. Evolution is about the enormous weight of evidence that life evolved from extremely primitive organisms to sophisticated ones over hundreds of millions of years. It would be true if the original primitive organisms originated spontaneously from non-life, were place here by space aliens, or was created by some sort of supreme being.

Michael Denton wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

An extensive refutation of Denton can be found in these two reviews....Denton is a very sloppy thinker and researcher:

http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

Both of these books were written by non-religious people raising scientific objections to evolution.

I'ts fairly questionable exactly how non-religious Denton is.

Michael Behe is a cellular biologist with impeccable credentials. In his book Darwin's Black Box, he shows that the irreducible complexity of life can't be explained by Darwinian gradualism.

And a zillion people have shown that Behe is wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

The gradualist pathways from one transition to another cannot be reconstructed, as Gould has pointed out.

Gould, Eldridge and Punctuated Equilibrium are constantly taken out of context, misportrayed, and misquoted by Creationists.

BTW, there are transitional fossil sequences all over the place.

The facts are CONSTANTLY fairly engaged. Take several days (it will take that long) to read the entirety of http://www.talkorigins.org. Though, the typical creationist response to evolution is "Show me the proof!" and then when evidence is presented it's "I don't have time to read all that!".

All of which turns out to be fabricated or total crap, typically presented by people with their "degrees" from microscopic un-accredited Bible schools or outright diploma factories, as is true of most of the ICR guys.

This evidence needs to be addressed instead of disqualified.

It's constantly addressed and shown to be worthless garbage.

Shapiro is an educated skeptic, an eminent chemist from New York University and an expert in his field. In his book he decimates the reigning ideas of how life could have evolved from non-life.

Michael Denton wrote Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

An extensive refutation of Denton can be found in these two reviews....Denton is a very sloppy thinker and researcher:

http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

Both of these books were written by non-religious people raising scientific objections to evolution.

I'ts fairly questionable exactly how non-religious Denton is.

Michael Behe is a cellular biologist with impeccable credentials. In his book Darwin's Black Box, he shows that the irreducible complexity of life can't be explained by Darwinian gradualism.

And a zillion people have shown that Behe is wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

The gradualist pathways from one transition to another cannot be reconstructed, as Gould has pointed out.

Gould, Eldridge and Punctuated Equilibrium are constantly taken out of context, misportrayed, and misquoted by Creationists.

BTW, there are transitional fossil sequences all over the place.

This evidence needs to be addressed instead of disqualified.

It's constantly addressed and shown to be worthless garbage.

If the purpose of the world is for people to be nice, then these guys are assuredly @$$holes. But if the purpose of the world is to take seriously reason, then we have to refute this in order to get on with our pursuit of gain; if it is to take seriously revelation, we have to reflect on this and understand what it has to say about our faith and our duty to God; and if we at least wish to take seriously the tension between religion and reason, this is exactly the stuff we're after.

Science emphasizes evidence and logical deduction, and is forever uncertain.

This may seem like a trivial point since the author may have simply not used the words properly. However, if he wrote what he intended then this is telling.

Science emphasized induction, not deduction. Deduction starts with your opinion of how the grand scheme of things works and then deduces the smaller pieces from the grand pieces until the details are filled in. That's how crimes are solved and why the concept of deduction is so intimately tied to Sherlock Holmes.

Induction is the process of taking all the pieceparts you can find and assembling them into a logical whole. It is the opposite of what Holmes does and the core of good science. From studying single-celled organisms we learn details about all life. We also learn details about the cells in multi-celled organisms. By studying the behaviors and the interactions of the cells, we learn the biology of the whole organism. Etc.

However, if you start with a position that evolution is true, then attempt to put all your evidence into a form that will demonstrate how evolution is true, you are practicing deduction.

Shalom.

There's two things you can do when you don't know something. You can try to find out, and probably make a few mistakes along the way. Or you can just say, I dunno, God must have done it.

First, I don't think this simplistic formulation does justice to the work of the Intelligent Designers. Their thesis isn't 'I dunno, G-d must have done it.' Their thesis is, 'We have concrete evidence that a designer must have done it.'

Secondly, it wasn't the theists who decided to cast this as a battle. The antagonists in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial did that when they intentionally set out to descredit creation accounts as unworthy of being discussed in school. Read the historical accounts of this event (and older ones, not newer revisionist ones) for the nature of the attack on religious viewpoints. For myself, and most of the people I know, if the darwinists would drop weapons there would be no battle.

Shalom.

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.