The scientific method is based on empirical evidence – i.e., evidence derived from observation.[1] However, the broad claims associated with the Fact of Evolution lack such empirical evidence. Nonetheless, many Evolutionists tout the empirical nature of the Fact of Evolution. For example, consider this quote from What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee by Molecular Anthropologist Jonathan Marks:
Evolution provides the most empirically valid explanation that we have for the present existence of life. Period.[2]
In order to evaluate Marks’ claim for empirical evidence, it is important to define what is meant by Evolution. For example, consider this broad claim about Evolution from the Humanist Manifesto III:
There is no direct empirical evidence supporting this broad claim. By definition, empiricism requires observation.[4] The alleged evolutionary transition from an ape-like creature to a human being was not directly observable. Attempts to substantiate such a broad claim have to rely on logical inferences derived from circumstantial evidence. But logical inferences derived from circumstantial evidence do not equate to empirical proof.
There is nothing wrong with making logical inferences based on circumstantial evidence. Everybody does it. The problem arises when such logical inferences are promoted with the authority of facts. Although he wasn’t writing about the Fact of Evolution itself, Marks describes the process whereby scientists seek to transform their speculative theories into facts:
Clearly, there is more here than simply the discovery of facts – there is a process by which a small class of ideas become facts. …
…
… If facts are made rather than being simply discovered, then how do we know what the facts are at any point in time? The facts are, of course, what the men in the white coats [i.e., the scientists] say they are.
But some of them are wrong. And we don’t know which ones.
This makes the study of science very interesting, but it also is threatening, because it undermines science’s claim to authority by virtue of facticty.[5]
In What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee, Marks describes how easy it is for scientists to fall into the trap of promoting speculative conclusions that turn out to be wrong. For example, Marks describes how different generations of scientists have reached opposite conclusions about the existence of human races. As Marks puts it, scientists tend to find what they expect to find:
Geneticists have attempted to track the evolutionary history of our species with varying degrees of success, often finding what they expect—identifying races in one generation, denying their existence in another.[6]
Marks isn’t alone in pointing this out. The distinguished physicist Stephen Hawking also supports the claim that scientists are influenced by what they expect to find. For example, a 1919 British Expedition attempted to measure the bending of sunlight predicted by Einstein’s theory of relativity. In A Brief History of Time, Hawking describes how the experimental proof was not nearly as reliable as it was thought to be:
… later examination of the photographs taken on the expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science.[7]
It is clear that many scientists are seeking to find evidence that proves the Fact of Evolution. Because scientists have a tendency to find the result they are seeking, it is not surprising that they believe circumstantial evidence provides compelling proof that their evolutionary assumptions are correct. However, Marks has pointed out that there is a vast difference between facts and the opinions of expert scientists:
The relationship between reality (the facts) and the views of experts (the assertion of fact) is dependent upon the wisdom of the experts. They control the means for telling the facts from the nonfacts; if you are skeptical about what you hear about subatomic particles, after all, you can’t go out and build your own cyclotron. And it is, of course, in the interest of the experts to assure the rest of us that there is nothing to worry about. Thus, the “real world” of science – the conflicts of interest, the power struggles, the politics, the stupidity, the arrogance, the lapses of integrity – are not to be studied or dwelt upon. They are simply defined out of existence or rendered invisible – science is the study of facts of nature.[8]
Marks is not at all skeptical about the Fact of Evolution. However, he is certainly skeptical about the expert opinions derived from various genetic studies. What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee describes numerous instances of supposedly authoritative scientific statements that were absolutely wrong. Marks has acknowledged that this presents a danger to the integrity of all scientific claims:
Scientific statements strive to be accurate, and often succeed, but are always authoritative. Why? Because they are made by scientists. This creates a problem. If scientific statements are equally authoritative whether or not they are accurate, how do we know when to believe them?[9]
The integrity of the scientific process is dependent on the empirical evidence of repeatable experiments, rather than appeals to authority. In a speech at an annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the famous astronomer Carl Sagan pointed out how important this is to scientific integrity:
“The most fundamental axioms and conclusions may be challenged.” and the prevailing hypothesis “must survive confrontation with observation.” “Appeals to authority” he said, “are impermissible,” and “experiments must be reproducible.”[10]
Furthermore, consider this additional comment from Sagan: “Not all scientific statements have equal weight.”[11] The Fact of Evolution contains both empirical facts and logical inferences. It is not the empirical facts that are in dispute. Rather it is the logical inferences related to the Fact of Evolution that are in dispute. The logical inferences of scientists are simply not as trustworthy as empirical facts.
Allowing dissenting opinions is vital to correcting inaccuracies in scientific theories. According to Sagan, appealing to the authority of members of the scientific establishment is not a valid reason for silencing dissenting opinions. The logical inferences of scientist should never be beyond questioning, no matter how famous they are or how many scientists seem to agree.
Even famous scientists can get it wrong. Many scientific debates have had famous scientists on opposing sides. For example, the brilliant Einstein was not a proponent of Quantum Theory, despite its popularity among many of his famous colleagues. For example, in a letter to another famous physicist (Max Born), Einstein wrote:
You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one.[12]
Although the mathematical equations behind Quantum Theory are horridly complicated, certain aspects of Quantum Theory can be expressed in words that lay people can understand. For example, Quantum Theory alleges that a probability function determines certain properties of sub-atomic particles. This makes them unpredictable. Einstein described this as “God playing dice.”
Einstein spent many years unsuccessfully seeking a deterministic explanation of the universe – i.e., an explanation that did not involve “God playing dice.” However, the lack of a deterministic solution was not the only issue Einstein had with Quantum Theory. Einstein also hated the metaphysical philosophy behind the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.
The Copenhagen Interpretation asserts that sub-atomic particles are like a mathematical vapor and that they only take on real properties when measurements are made. Most people believe that a falling tree makes a sound even if nobody hears it. In poking fun at the Copenhagen Interpretation, Einstein mockingly described his view that the moon exists, even if nobody is looking at it:
I think that matter must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.[13]
The scientific debate over Quantum Theory was about more than empirical evidence. It involved the philosophical issue of what reality actually was. Einstein believed the universe was ultimately deterministic, and this philosophy led him to doubt Quantum Theory. This philosophical view led Einstein to seek an underlying deterministic reality that would explain away the probabilistic nature of Quantum Theory. He never found it.[14]
A similar philosophical debate surrounds the Fact of Evolution. Modern science is driven by the philosophical assumption that everything in the universe can be explained by a strict reliance on naturalistic explanations.[15] Hence, potential supernatural explanations are ruled out by this a priori assumption. Because the Theory of Evolution is considered as the best naturalistic explanation, it is asserted to be a fact.
Evolution is not the only branch of modern science that has ignored the need for underlying empirical evidence in the rush to promote a speculative theory as a scientific fact. For example, consider these quotes from physicist David Lindley about the science of cosmology (from The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory):
Inflation, cold dark matter, hot dark matter, biasing – the terms are thrown about so casually by the builders of galaxy-formation theories. All of them are pure hypothesis, nothing but speculation.[16]
Modern cosmological ideas are built on ideas that have no proven validity, if one insists on the old fashioned standard of empirical evidence.[17]
Grand unification, which is in physical terms an entirely speculative and wholly unverified theory, is nevertheless taken by cosmologists as a done deal, something they can teach to their students. It does not seem to matter that no specific version of the theory has been settled on – one version or another ought to do the job, it seems, and that is good enough for the cosmologists.[18]
In The End of Physics, Lindley points out that science has a history of hanging onto speculative theories no matter what empirical evidence turns up:
History suggests, however, that even if these superparticles don’t show up, there will be strenuous efforts to save supersymmetry by tinkering with it rather than deciding that the whole thing is a failure.[19]
Once a speculative theory is elevated to the level of a fact, there seems little reason to reject it. In other words, once a speculative theory becomes widely accepted, it is not easy to dislodge it. A good example of this is the speculative concept that life originated in a prebiotic soup. This is pointed out in a quote by Physicist Hubert Yockey:
Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions. …
The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. … Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.[20]
Because of the desire to hang onto a paradigm, once a speculative theory is assumed true, negative evidence is often downplayed. As Lindley has pointed out, scientists tend to tinker with defective theories, rather than rejecting them. A good example of this is the so-called String Theory, which postulates a large number of invisible dimensions. As one would expect, the observational evidence for invisible dimensions is quite limited!
As more research was done, predictions from String Theory didn’t seem to match the latest empirical data. However, instead of considering that String Theory may have been falsified, its advocates simply postulated even more complex explanations. For example, a 2006 Time Magazine article describes how String Theory was modified to include the hypothesis of an infinite number of universes.[21]
The Time Magazine article points out that the modified String Theory has no way of showing why our specific universe is more likely than any other hypothetical universe. The article also points out that the most sensible prediction of String Theory has no guarantee for being valid for all the hypothetical universes and that the most outrageous prediction has a chance of being valid in at least one hypothetical universe.
Many people would consider this a very bizarre scientific claim. Michael Lemonic, the author of the Time Magazine article, expresses that thought in this quote:
That sort of reasoning drives critics up the wall. It was bad enough, they say, when string theorists treated nonbelievers as though they were a little slow-witted. Now, it seems, at least some superstring advocates are ready to abandon the essential definition of science itself on the basis that string theory is too important to be hampered by old-fashioned notions of experimental proof.[22]
It would be hard to argue that such quotes inspire confidence in the modern rush to classify speculative theories as scientific facts. Other examples abound. For example, various theories about multiple invisible universes have become commonplace in physics. The rampant speculation about such invisible universes is demonstrated by this quote from The Fabric of Reality by Oxford Physicist David Deutsch:
If, aside from the variants of me in other universes, there are also multiple identical copies of me, which one am I? I am, of course, all of them. Each of them has just asked the question, ‘which one am I?’, and any true way of answering that question must give each of them the same answer. To assume that it is physically meaningful to ask which of the identical copies is me, is to assume that there is some frame of reference outside the multiverse, relative to which the answer could be given – ‘I am the third one from the left.’ But what ‘left’ could that be, and what does ‘the third one’ mean? Such terminology makes sense only if we imagine the snapshots of me arrayed at different positions in some external space. But the multiverse does not exist in any external space any more than it exists in an external time: it contains all the space and time there is. It just exists, and physically it is all that exists.[23]
The closing line of Deutsch’s quote is very similar to a famous quote of Carl Sagan: “The cosmos is all that ever was, or ever will be.”[24] However, Deutsch believes in the presence of multiple copies of human beings that exist in invisible universes beyond the cosmos envisioned by Carl Sagan. Who is right? They both cannot be. Perhaps neither is. Yet both present their speculative ideas with the authority of science.
In recent times, science has been dominated by speculative theories that go beyond empirical evidence. These include the cosmological theories described by David Lindley, the multiple invisible dimensions central to String Theory, and the multiple universes promoted by David Deutsch. These examples clearly demonstrate that modern science willingly embraces speculation not backed by empirical evidence.
While postulating invisible dimensions and invisible universes is acceptable to many modern scientists, postulating the direct creation of life forms by an unknown intelligence (or an invisible God) is often considered taboo. It seems as if some invisible things are acceptable to modern science, while others are not. In particular, many scientists have an a priori bias against the possibility of a preexisting intelligence (see Chapter 5).
However, there are many empirical observations indicating that the laws of physics must have very tight constraints in order for our universe to support life. Many modern scientists attribute this to some behind-the-scenes intelligence that has purposely designed the laws of physics so that the visible universe is capable of supporting life. For example, consider this quote from the Physicist Fred Hoyle:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."[25]
The immense precision of the physical constants of the universe that would be needed to support life is well known within the world of modern physics. This is described by Physicist Paul Davies in an article published that was published in the UK Guardian:
Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal.[26]
The title of Davies article is, “Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it.” The fine-tuning of our universe is an empirical fact. Whether or not such fine-tuning requires a pre-existing God is speculation. Although, modern science is not shy about embracing speculative theories, speculating about the existence of a God capable of fine-tuning the laws of physics is considered unthinkable by many scientists.
As an alternative explanation to God, many physicists have embraced the so-called Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle is based on the following statement: “If the conditions in the universe were not suitable for life, we would not be asking why they are as they are.”[27] The controversy surrounding the Anthropic Principle is described by Physicist Stephen Hawking:
Many physicists dislike the Anthropic Principle. They feel it is messy and vague, it can be used to explain almost anything, and it has little predictive power. I sympathize with these feelings, but the Anthropic Principle seems essential in quantum cosmology. …
The Anthropic Principle is usually said to have weak and strong versions. According to the strong Anthropic Principle, there are millions of different universes, each with different values of the physical constants. Only those universes with suitable physical constants will contain intelligent life. [28]
Hawking goes onto describe the weak Anthropic Principle. Instead of hypothesizing a huge number of invisible universes, the weak Anthropic Principle hypothesizes that our universe has a huge number of sections with different physical constants. Both versions of the Anthropic Principle are analogous to this logical deduction: You will surely find a needle in a haystack, provided you reach your hand in enough times.
However, if you have a big enough haystack, no amount of attempts is likely to pull out the missing needle. The probability for a universe compatible with the second law of thermodynamics (as ours is) is so low that it would be impossible to write it down. This quote from Physicist Roger Penrose’s The Emperor’s New Mind describes how unlikely our universe is:
This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 1010**123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe – and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure – we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.[29]
No matter how improbable an event is, it can be explained away by invoking a large enough sample. For example, suppose the odds of winning a lottery are 1 in 10 million. However, if you buy every possible ticket number, you will be guaranteed a winning ticket. The Anthropic Principle operates on similar reasoning. If you postulate a large enough number of universes, anything is possible.
Advocates for Evolution invoke a similar strategy. They invoke a huge quantity of time – and sometimes a huge number of planets – in an attempt to explain how extremely complex life forms could have been formed by random events (genetic mutations). However, the alleged Evolutionary process is as unobservable as our multiple invisible universes, invisible string dimensions, and dark matter.
The modern physicist’s hunt for a Theory of Everything has strayed far from a reliance on empirical evidence and the concept of testability. David Lindley has worked as an editor at two highly respected scientific journals – Nature and Science.[30] In The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory, Lindley described the physicist’s quest for a Theory of Everything in these words:
Perhaps physicists will one day find a theory of such compelling beauty that its truth cannot be denied; truth will be beauty, and beauty will be truth.
This theory of everything will be, in precise terms, a myth. A myth is a story that makes sense within its own terms, offers explanations for everything that we see around us, but can be neither tested nor disproved. A myth is an explanation that everyone agrees upon because it is convenient to agree on it, not because its truth can be determined. This theory of everything, this myth, will indeed spell the end of physics. It will be the end not because physics has at last been able to explain everything in the universe, but because physics has reached the end of all the things it has the power to explain.[31]
Evolution functions as a biological Theory of Everything. Many advocates believe that Evolution has such a compelling beauty that it cannot be anything but true. However, as with many theories of modern physics, it can neither be tested nor disproved. Karl Popper, a famous philosopher of science, described how easy it is to believe that all available evidence supports theories that seek to explain everything:
These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming evidence everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus, its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth, who refuse to see it …[32]
Popper wrote this passage about Freud and Adler’s theories on psychology and Marx’s theory on communism. In Darwin on Trial, Phillip Johnson described the danger Popper saw in a theory that has no testability, but attempts to explain everything:
Popper saw that a theory that appears to explain everything actually explains nothing. If wages fell, this was because capitalists were exploiting the workers, as Marx predicted they would, and if wages rose this was because capitalists were trying to save a rotten system with bribery, which was also what Marxism predicted. A psychoanalyst could explain why a man would commit murder – or, with equal facility, why the same man would sacrifice his own life to save another.[33]
The broad claim of Evolutionists is that all life forms share a common ancestor. As with the Marxist claims, this broad claim cannot be tested. As with the Marxist claims, all evidence is interpreted as confirmation. Any similarity in organisms is taken as proof of common descent. Any difference in organisms is taken as proof of evolutionary change. The transformation of speculative claims into fact is a dangerous metamorphosis.
The bottom line of good science is that the facts it promotes must be empirically driven – i.e. based on observational evidence. However, many of the broad claims of the Fact of Evolution have no empirical support. Empirical evidence, and not speculative opinions, is what has led to great scientific advancements. The scientific community is treading on very dangerous ground when it transforms speculative claims into fact.
It is often implied that rejecting the Fact of Evolution amounts to rejecting all of modern scientific advancements in favor of ancient myths. For example, this Richard Dawkins quote from an interview with Lanny Swerdlow pokes fun at the thought that any religious claim might be able to compete with the worldview of modern scientists:
The proof of the pudding is: When you actually fly to your international conference of cultural anthropologists, do you go on a magic carpet or do you go on a Boeing 747?[34]
However, this is a faulty comparison. Boeing 747’s are built by engineers who practice an applied science that relies on empirical facts. Aeronautical engineers don’t design modern airplanes based on stories with creative reflection – they test their designs in wind tunnels and with computer simulations. The advancements of modern day engineering are solidly grounded in empirical science and not speculative stories.
Theodosius Dobzhansky has stated “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution.”[35] However, is that really true? It is not. Empirical observations of modern day cells have helped biochemists to gain a deeper understanding of their operation. This has led to improved medical treatments. Speculative stories, such as Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins, contribute little, if anything at all, to that effort.[36]
If one sought to divide empirical-biology (based on factual observations) from speculative-biology (based on evolutionary stories) it is easy enough to do. For example, Biochemist Bruce Alberts has described how the next generation of Molecular Biologists needs to focus on the cell as a collection of protein machines.[37] Alberts describes how the current education of many biologists doesn’t provide adequate preparation for this task.[38]
Alberts is very honest in describing the naïve view of cellular operation that he learned as a graduate student in the 1960’s.[39] At that time, cells were viewed as a collection of randomly colliding proteins.[40] However, as this quote from Alberts’ Biology Past and Biology Future indicates, the complex biochemical systems that allow human beings to walk and talk are much more complex than that:
We have always underestimated cells; undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naive as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. It turns out that we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is enormously elaborate and sophisticated. Cells are the basic unit of life, and proteins make up most of their dry mass. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules, comprising a “protein machine”. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of different protein machines in defined positions.[41]
Nothing in this description involves speculative Evolutionary stories. Rather, identifying the complex biological processes of cell operation has everything to do with empirical analysis. It is analogous to the reverse engineering of a complex system. One might even argue that scientists have always underestimated cellular complexity because they assumed that cells were formed through a process of random evolutionary change.
In describing cells, Alberts uses terminology such as “enormously elaborate and sophisticated.” He describes cells as “a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines.” The Evolutionary speculation of a simple cell formed by random processes seems inconsistent with these phrases. Nobody doubts the intelligence of scientists. But bad assumptions can make really bright people appear very naïve.
Alberts is not alone in describing the naïve views that scientists had about cellular life. Craig Venter, a pioneer in sequencing the Human Genome, has also noted the naïve assumptions scientists have made about the Human Genome:
There are many examples of how speculative Evolutionary assumptions may have hindered, rather than helped, the empirical process of reverse-engineering cellular complexity. For example, this quote from a 2007 University of California
Scientists have only recently begun to speculate that what's referred to as "junk" DNA … is present in the genome for an important reason. But it wasn't clear what the reason was. Now, researchers [at UCSD] … have discovered one important function of so-called junk DNA.[43]
It is common knowledge that proteins perform many very important functions in living cells.[44] It is also common knowledge that the DNA string of an organism (called a Genome) contains coded-information that specifies how to construct each protein a cell uses.[45] The portion of a DNA string that contains the instructions for one specific protein is called a gene. Genes make up only about 4% of the human genome.[46]
It is common knowledge that the genes for many organisms are very similar. For example, PBS Nova’s program describes how 50% of human genes are similar to the genes in bananas.[47] Scientists argue that such genetic similarity proves that human beings and bananas must have had a common evolutionary ancestor. This similarity of genes has led scientists to assume that 96% of the DNA is evolutionary junk with no functional use.
However, it is clear to everybody that human beings are very different than bananas, even if they share some similarities in genes. To understand why they are different, some scientists have begun to examine the 96% of the DNA that has been classified as useless junk. As scientists have begun to do that, they have learned that a huge segment of DNA that was assumed to be junk, really wasn’t.
The UCSD Press Release describes how the so-called Junk-DNA may be analogous to the punctuation (i.e. commas and periods) in a written document.[48] If you remove the punctuation marks (or change their location) a document may lose its meaning entirely. This would especially be true if you randomly shuffled the order of words in a document. Very many different books can be written with the same basic set of words.
An elaborate palace is very different than a set of primitive stone huts for reasons other than the type of stone used in construction. Perhaps human beings and bananas are very different because they use their building materials (genes) in very different ways. If so, focusing on the building materials (i.e. genes) is never going to explain why various organisms are so different despite having very similar genes.
The UCSD article points out that successful gene therapy may depend on transferring not only genes, but also the punctuation marks that hold them together. Perhaps, this is why making genetically-modified crops isn’t as simple as transferring genes from one organism to another. For example, here is a quote from Ron Fridell’s Decoding Life that illustrates how little we really understand about modifying existing DNA-streams:
Scientists use a kind of trial-and-error process” when adding DNA to plant genomes. When they want to insert a new gene, they guess at a good location. If that position doesn’t work, they try adding a gene to a different spot. They keep on experimenting until they find a position where the new gene works the way they want it to.
Even when researches locate the right position on the genome, they can’t be certain that unintended side effects won’t occur.[49]
Although our scientific knowledge of genetics is increasing very rapidly, there is still a great deal that we don’t know – particularly regarding the function of junk DNA. Recent research is continuing to unveil more and more vital uses for DNA segments long assumed to be worthless relics of Evolution. One of these recent discoveries involves tiny DNA segments called piRNAs that help control gene production.
Haifan Lin (director of the Yale University Stem Cell Center
This finding revealed a surprisingly important role for piRNAs, as well as junk DNA, in stem cell division … It calls upon biologists to look for answers beyond the one percent of the genome with protein coding capacity to the vast land of junk DNA, which constitutes 99 percent of the genome.[50]
In 2003, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) established the ENCODE project to “identify all functional elements in the human genome sequence.”[51] The pilot phase of the Encode project reached the following conclusions:
The ENCODE consortium's major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. This broad pattern of transcription challenges the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active.
The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact.[52]
As this summary of Encode pilot project indicates, a long-standing assumption that the bulk of DNA is evolutionary junk has turned out to be false. Rather than aiding the scientific cause of seeking the truth about how DNA works, evolutionary assumptions about the uselessness of Junk-DNA may have kept scientists from empirically investigating large sections of DNA.
Furthermore, speculation about the evolutionary development of cells is not needed to do an empirical analysis of the “enormously elaborate and sophisticated” chemistry of cells. For example, Bruce Alberts gave a talk about the future of Biology in 2006. If one examines the first five challenges listed by Alberts, all of them are based on empirical research to decipher the detailed complexity of cell operation.[53]
Evolutionary speculation does not play a prominent part in any of the first five challenges that Alberts lists for the future of biology. In fact, the word evolution turns up only four times in the 61 pages of Alberts’ presentation.[54] The sixth and last challenge is the only place where Alberts focuses on the future goal of seeking Evolutionary explanations for the origin of complicated cell pathways.[55]
If Evolution is to be substantiated by empirical facts, putting this challenge last makes the most sense to me. To claim that Evolutionary processes made cells work prior to understanding the details of how cells work is like hooking up the cart to pull the horse. Claims of this nature simply assume that Evolution is the cause of cellular complexity, no matter what types of cellular complexity may be discovered.
This is not unlike Johnson’s comments that Marxism was assumed to provide an explanation for whatever economic effect was observed – no matter what is was. As Johnson has stated, “Popper saw that a theory that appears to explain everything actually explains nothing.”[56] If the Fact of Evolution is assumed to be the explanation for any newly discovered cell functionality – no matter what it is – then it explains nothing.
As an engineer, I know that bad assumptions can swiftly lead to theoretical catastrophes. Many theoretically sound designs have ended up in shattered ruins because of a bad assumption somewhere in the design process. Here are just a few examples:
Many long-held evolutionary assumptions are turning out to be wrong – for example, the concept that much of DNA was useless junk. Another example is the assumption that many organs were vestigial – i.e., useless relics of evolutionary development. It is now known that these allegedly useless organs have important functions.[60] Rashly adopting such speculative assumptions as facts does nothing to advance the cause of good science.
The cell is the basic unit of all life. By any honest account, we don’t understand many details about how cells work. There is a line in Mary Doria Russell’s science-fiction book The Sparrow that states, “The goal of every engineer is to retire without getting blamed for a major catastrophe.”[61] Claiming that Evolution is the proven cause of something we don’t understand opens science to the possibility of a major theoretical catastrophe.
Acknowledgments
Endnotes are contained in the following section. The following shorthand notation connects the numbered endnotes to permission statements:
N(x, y, z, …) indicates endnotes numbered ‘x’, ‘y’, ‘z’.
I gratefully acknowledge permission to reproduce quotes from the following copyrighted material:
N(2, 5, 6, 8, 9): Jonathan Marks, What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes. (c) 2002 by the Regents of the University of California University of California University of California Press
N(16, 17, 18, 19, 31): David Lindley, The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory (New York: Basic Books, 1993). Used with permission of the Perseus Books Group.
N(20): Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 336. This quote falls within the Fair Use Guidelines of Cambridge University Press.
N(21-22): Michael D. Lemonic, “The Unraveling of String Theory,” 14 August 2006, Time Magazine, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1226142,00.html. Time Magazine expressed no objection to my quoting this material in the context of this chapter.
N(29): Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989). Used with permission of Oxford University Press.
N(33, 56): Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993). These quotes fall within the Fair Use Guidelines of Intervarsity Press and Regnery Press.
N(41, 53-55): Bruce Alberts, “Biology Past and Biology Future: Where have we been and where are we going?,” http://www.interacademies.net/?id=7642. Used with the permission of Bruce Alberts.
Notes and References
[2]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[3]. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_and_Its_Aspirations for background information. The quotation in context is available at this website: “Humanism and its Aspiratitions: Humanist Manifesto III, a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933,” American Humanist Association, http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III.
[5]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[6]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[8]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[9]. Jonathan Marks, What it means to be 98% chimpanzee (
[12]. Albert Einstein and Max Born (translated by Irene Born), The Born-Einstein Letters (
[13]. Albert Einstein and Max Born (translated by Irene Born), The Born-Einstein Letters (
[14]. Stephen Hawking, “Does God Play Dice,” http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=57.
[15]. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), pp. 7-8.
[16]. David Lindley, The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory (New York: Basic Books, 1993), p. 205.
[17]. David Lindley, The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory (New York: Basic Books, 1993), p. 205.
[18]. David Lindley, The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory (New York: Basic Books, 1993), p. 167.
[19]. David Lindley, The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory (New York: Basic Books, 1993), p. 192.
[20]. Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 336, as quoted from the webpage: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3972.asp.
[21]. Michael D. Lemonic, “The Unraveling of String Theory,” 14 August 2006, Time Magazine, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1226142,00.html.
[22]. Michael D. Lemonic, “The Unraveling of String Theory,” 14 August 2006, Time Magazine, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1226142,00.html.
[25]. Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Some Past and Present Reflections” printed in “Engineering and Science,” November 1981, p 12, http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/527/2/Hoyle.pdf.
[26]. Paul Davies, “Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it,” The Guardian; 6 June 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment.
[27]. Gabor Csanyi, “Stephen Hawking Lectures on Controversial Theory,” 8 October 1999; http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N48/47hawking.48n.html.
[28]. Stephen Hawking, “Quantum Cosmology, M-theory and the Anthropic Principle,” January 1999, http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=57.
[31]. David Lindley, The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory (New York: Basic Books, 1993), p. 255.
[32]. Karl Popper, “Science as Falsification,” originally published in the book: Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963), pp. 33-39, as quoted from the website: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html.
[33]. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 148.
[34]. Lanny Swerdlow, “My Short Interview with Richard Dawkins,” http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/dawkins0.htm.
[35]. Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” The American Biology Teacher, March 1973, as quoted from the website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/2/text_pop/l_102_01.html.
[36]. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 2006 Edition (
[37]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, as referenced from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[38]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, p. 293, as referenced from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[39]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, p. 291, as referenced from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[40]. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell 92(3):291-4, 6 February 1998, p. 291, as referenced from Science Direct, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WSN-419K592-1/2/fc6ab6ca1e175d970b76c6a10ad6e81a.
[41]. Bruce Alberts, “Biology Past and Biology Future: Where have we been and where are we going?” http://www.interacademies.net/?id=7642.
[42]. Ulrich Bahnsen, “Erbgut in Auflösung,” Die Zeit, Number 25, 12 June 2008, http://www.zeit.de/2008/25/M-Genetik, http://pdf.zeit.de/2008/25/M-Genetik.pdf. The German language quote is: “Unsere Annahmen waren so naiv, dass es fast peinlich ist.”
[43]. Debra Kain, “One Man's Junk May be a Genomic Treasure,”
[44]. See:
[46]. Debra Kain, “One Man's Junk May be a Genomic Treasure,”
[47]. PBS-Nova, “Cracking the Code of Life,” 17 April 2001, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2809genome.html.
[48]. Debra Kain, “One Man's Junk May be a Genomic Treasure,”
[50]. “Scientists Discover Tiny RNAs Play a Big Role in Controlling Genes,”
[51]. “The ENCODE Project: ENCyclopedia Of DNA Elements,” National Institutes of Health, http://www.genome.gov/10005107.
[52]. “New Findings Challenge Established Views on Human Genome,” National Institutes of Health, 13 June 2007, http://www.genome.gov:80/25521554.
[53]. Bruce Alberts, “Biology Past and Biology Future: Where have we been and where are we going?” 3 December 2006, pp. 21, 28, 36, 41, 43, http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/7/640/BAlberts2.pdf.
[54]. Bruce Alberts, “Biology Past and Biology Future: Where have we been and where are we going?” 3 December 2006, pp. 17, 30, 31, 56, http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/7/640/BAlberts2.pdf.
[55]. Bruce Alberts, “Biology Past and Biology Future: Where have we been and where are we going?” 3 December 2006, p. 56, http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/7/640/BAlberts2.pdf.
[56]. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), p. 148.
[60]. Jerry Bergman, “Do any vestigial structures exist in humans,” CEN Technical Journal 14(2) 2000, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/TJv14n2_Vestigial.pdf .
No comments:
Post a Comment