Archive for March 2007

Evolution and Ethics

March 24, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) makes the following observation in his essay “Evolution and Ethics;” indeed it is the theme of his essay:

“[t]he practice of that which is ethically best–what we call goodness or virtue–involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive.”

Huxley is acknowledging that the concept of evolution is diametrically opposed to the concept of ethics, but that ethics nonetheless should be our pursuit. He argues that we must work hard for the social good, and the work is because it contradicts our nature. He does not acknowledge however, nor can anyone defend, how blind evolution could lead an organism (over millions of years) to a condition where its progress depends on contradicting the process that brought it about.

Posted in Notable Quotes, History | 1 Comment »

Flagellum Rebuttal Rebuttal

March 18, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

In my last blog I gave a link for flagellum that includes not only the beautiful detailed construction of the flagellum, but also an accompanying link labeled, “A video response to The Evolution of the Flagellum.” Since I led you to this rebuttal, I should respond to the response. In the first place, I chose this video to illustrate what a flagellum is, because the step-be-step assembly process makes obvious every part necessary to build a flagellum. The Title of this video, “The Evolution of the Flagellum,” implies to some that the flagellum “evolved” by chance and that it was not designed. Behe, the inspiration for this Japanese-produced video, even uses the word “evolution” in his Lehigh faculty website. By this he means that change may require design, but that time may also be in the equation. He defends only one point–Design–and that’s all I’ll address here. The (narrow) point is that the sequence would not reasonably occur by chance.

Now for the rebuttal: The author’s basic argument seems to be that by illustrating the reasonableness of the sequence (acknowledged to be the scientific work of another), the machine would have evolved by chance. Actually, this defense of chance evolution merely adds verbal justification for the sequence already observed. It still does not give the possible usefulness of each step. The key to Behe’s argument is not that the sequence is not discernable, but that the sequence would not evolve by chance without each molecule added being advantageous to the organism, thus justifying the favored reproduction of the organism that possesses it. If a reason, even a theoretical reason, cannot be found for each added molecule, then natural selection would only eliminate the molecule, because the production of any molecule would cost the system something. Without a justifiable return on each molecular investment, the addition would be costly baggage in blind survival of the fittest.

Some would say any claim that an alternative answer cannot be found is a “God of the gaps” answer. In this case it is not that a fossil or organism has not “yet” been found; it is that the advantage to such an organism cannot even be imagined. To ignore that 20 or 25 “missing links” cannot even be imagined is, on the contrary, a “Darwin of the gaps” answer.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

Is Irreducible Complexity Really Irreducible?

March 13, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

A friend send me a link to YouTube this week. (Thanks, Luke.) The presentation, attacking Michael Behe’s use of the flagellum as irreducible complexity, is very convincing. The presenter accurately presents Behe’s argument before the rebuttal. No, I don’t buy it. Here’s why: The presenter argues that there does exist a less complex organelle composed of only 10 proteins that are found in the bacterial flagellum, which requires approximately 48. He presents the idea as if an example of just 10 is superior to a more complex example. That is in no way the case, but it apparently is used in an attempt to sway the audience. The argument is that since one functional organelle exists of lesser complexity, and all other parts have use somewhere in biology; then the flagellum is no longer irreducible. Behe also addresses this in his Darwin’s Black Box. He agrees that one of the 48 steps to the flagellum’s complexity exists. Still, the flagellum argument can only be defeated if EVERY intermediary step can be demonstrated to be functional. An example would be the building of words from lesser words, such as the following:
a, at, bat, bate, abate, abated. Proving that a function exists for one lesser level of complexity and stating that all other parts have functions (he does say in the video that his argument is hypothetical) would be like saying all letters in the alphabet are useful, therefore the word “university” evolved from the word “sit.” (Sorry, I couldn’t think of a word that has 48 letters.) If irreducible complexity is not really irreducible, it is not demonstrated by this video.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

Journal Addresses “Need” to Teach Evolution

March 2, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

In February of this year Dr. Niles Eldridge announced that he would be editing a new journal entitled Outreach and Education in Evolution According to Today’s News today in the Chronicle of Higher Education it is “designed to bring advances in the subject into classrooms from kindergarten to graduate school.. The journal will help counter the intelligent-design movement and other efforts to challenge the teaching of evolution, Mr. [SIC] Eldredge said in a recent interview. ‘I’m seeing a tremendous need for this. I sense in the country now more of an interest. A lot of the anti-science, anti-evolution stuff is political, and I think it’s coming to the point where good-quality materials for classrooms are in demand.’”

The “need” that DR. Eldredge is referring to may be illustrated by facts later explained in the same article: “high-school teachers — approximately one-third in Minnesota — don’t teach evolution, either because they don’t believe in it or because they don’t know enough about it.” Note that there is no effort to distinguish whether these teachers don’t know or don’t believe. If one unconditionally believes in evolution, there is no difference — If one knows, then one would believe.

Notice also from the top quote that any objection to evolution is classified as “anti-science” and the only recognized basis for objection is political. As long as scientific objections are not recognized, there can be no real counter to them.

The “more of an interest” that Dr. Eldredge is referring to may be illustrated by the huge response of persons seeking to publish in the new journal, so much so that Eldredge and son moved the first issue up one quarter ahead of schedule to September ‘07. But this interest is from those seeking to win people over to evolution, not from a public seeking to know evolution better. According to Telmo Pievani, a noted Italian professor, they must counter because “some conservative and religious leaders have grasped the political power of the tricky ideas of ‘intelligent design.’” Perhaps “tricky” is another way of saying formidable. As Eldredge says, “If the evolution controversy hasn’t come to a school district yet, it will. It’s just a matter of time.”

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

|