June 28, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

It has been several months now since my appendix was removed (see entry April 10), and I am yet to detect what my body no longer does or gets that it did or got when I had an appendix. The evolutionist’s response to this is that it is a vestigial organ, one made useless by evolution away from the need while the organ remains. I have several problems with this concept: First, if the organ is useless, then why is it there at all? Nature is very frugal with energy, and anything not used can disappear rather quickly, like the eyes of the blind cave fish (permanently and genetically) or the legs of a developing tadpole that gets no opportunity to exercise its new legs on dry land (a missed developmental stage), or even the atrophying of the limbs of an accidental paraplegic (recession simply from lack of use). Yet the organ is there generation after generation. Second, I have a problem with the vestigial concept, because there is no clear ancestral function for the organ, including in our supposed more primitive relatives. How could we make such major changes as is suggested by the stated relations and yet the appendix remains unchanged?

It would make more sense to assume that the organ has one or more functions that are quickly duplicated by other organs in the absence of the appendix. When my appendix ruptured, my intestines took on a new function of walling off infection. Isn’t it rational to assume other organs could do the same? Why do we have two kidneys when one can do the job? Why do we have two lungs, when a person can live with one? Two ovaries? Two testicles? Two parathyroid? We are replete with duplication. the problem with this assumption is not that it is without parallel in the body, but that it flies in the face of evolution. How could an organism evolve a back-up system, which is needed only once over many generations? The answer is, it can’t. Evolution is an insufficient explanation. The real question is, why isn’t that OK?

Posted in Science and faith, Personal story | 1 Comment »

June 22, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

Some years ago I spoke to an assembly in Perth, Western Australia on the difficulties with Darwinian theory. Afterwards a young woman who came up front made the sideways remark, “Well, I guess we could just abandon science in favor of this.” I was taken back, because I don’t see the connection, and I thought that was clear. Her culture (and I’m afraid mine, too) has trained us to believe science and evolution cannot not be separated. But if evolution were dropped from science, it would make very little difference in scientific progress. The only thing eliminated would be a justifying belief system for why things are the way they are, not how they work. Can you think of a scientific advancement that depends on evolution being true? Let us consider a few advances:

• Classification of life forms–Our system was set up by Georges Cuvier, a Creationist.

• Scientific analysis of earth layers–Developed by Nicholas Steno, a Creationist, to help miners predict the location of ore in England. He interpreted the layers as the result of a world-wide flood.

• Genetics–Gregor Mendal is today recognized a the father of modern genetics, but it is seldom noted that his pea plant experiments followed on the heals of Darwin’s book, and his purpose was to demonstrate that the peas have modular (gene) characteristics that cycle back and forth, and no permanent change takes place. For that point you will have to read a translation of his actual paper. It’s toward the end, and he cites another scientist who supports the same conclusion.

So evolution is not necessary for the advancement of science. Is it profitable? A hindrance? Consider that biology has dismissed many organs over the years as “vestigial,” meaning left over from evolution, and therefore useless to the organism today. Slowly that number has shrunk, as their purposes are discovered anyway. How much faster could science advance if questions were not dismissed from research by evolutionary explanations? For a current example, look at Richard Ingram’s article in Discovery, “Landmark Study Prompts DNA Rethink.” Based on evolution assumptions, much of DNA has been considered as junk:

“In between the genes and the sequences known to regulate their activity are long, tedious stretches that appear to do nothing. The term for them is “junk” DNA, reflecting the presumption that they are merely driftwood from our evolutionary past and have no biological function.

But the work by the ENCODE (ENCyclopaedia of DNA Elements) consortium implies that this nuggets-and-dross concept of DNA should be, well, junked.” (p. 1)

“But the ENCODE consortium were surprised to find that the genome appears to be stuffed with functional elements that offer no identifiable benefits in terms of survival or reproduction.” (p. 2)

They were surprised because functional elements that do not contribute to survival or reproduction do not fit the Darwinian model. Will they abandon the Darwinian model? Hardly. They are rethinking how to make evolution fit with the new knowledge, and in the future we may again find how it stifles scientific progress.

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

June 16, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

Much is being said right now about Dr. James W. Holsinger, Jr., President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general, because of the 1991 paper he wrote, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality.” I will not address this subject for or against homosexuality, for or against the nomination, but from the use or abuse of science, and what I fear it illustrates about our society. Please consider:

The major article by ABC stimulating the controversy implies that the 1991 work by Holsinger is unscientific, and in the label for the video accompanying the article, ABC calls him “homophobic.” The article cited an objecting professor who said, “I an’t [sic] imagine that any scientific journal would be able to publish this material because of its very narrow views of homosexuality.” The reason it should not be published? It is narrow in its view, not that it is not right or true or well documented. Any academic should also realize that the piece is a position paper–not intended for research journal publication, but to argue a position. (Should not science inform decisions and thereafter be used to argue the position?) The professor and others are further sited as saying the information is “outdated,” “totally faulty,” and that Holsinger “doesn’t know anything about human sexuality.” Holsinger cites 14 noted science journals and reputable science texts in his paper (all but one of which are dated within 5 years of Holsinger’s paper, well within the acceptable range to be call “current” at the time of publication). The opposing views contain no references to articles or books that refute him, yet the term “unscientific” has become a catch word from his opposition. A quick web search with the two words “Hosinger” and “unscientific” will demonstrate how (and with whom) this idea has caught on. Read his paper. See if you think it is unscientific.

My issue here is with the way his accusers argue that he is “unscientific,” and yet I wonder if most people who use the term even think about its definition. Anyone who has observed our society for more than a couple of decades should be able to catch the drift: a person is labeled “homophobic” not because of his emotional expression, but based on his position on an issue. A person is labeled “unscientific” not because of the evidence or logic of the argument, but because of the position one takes. When people move from arguing based on “that’s not right because..” to arguing based on “what right do you have to say that?” we have abandoned our constitutional (human) right of expression, but also logic in general and science in particular.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Science and faith | No Comments »

June 12, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

Most scientists will agree that science should be agnostic. Well, the word agnostic literally means, “I don’t know.” People who will not consider all the evidence, including evidence that there may be a Designer, are not saying, “I don’t know,” they are saying, “I don’t want to know.”

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

June 7, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

The May 18 issue of Science, contains Paul Bloom’s and Deena Weisberg’s article, “Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science,” but the authors were kind enough to post a summary of those ideas on the web for non-subscribers. Their thesis is summed up in the abstract in this way: “Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources.” They explain in the article (and its posted version) that “resistance to science” includes skepticism toward the theory of evolution. Likewise, “nonscientific ideologies” includes the dual idea that there is a soul and life has purpose. “Trustworthy [yet potentially misleading] sources” include parents. In the article they exemplify intuitively wrong ideas with the childish idea that the world is flat because it is perceived so in daily experience, but they also acknowledge that this is overcome by about age eight. They give no example of why children are mislead to believe that there is a soul or that life has purpose, but they imply it is cultural by pointing to the United States as a major problem arena, where these ideas persist into adulthood. They make two observations: Interest in science (as they define it) is declining, and increased emphasis on science education will not help. Enough on their intent. I would like to site a confession they make. Toward the end of the posted version we read:

“If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it. As our colleague Frank Keil has discussed, this sort of division of cognitive labor is essential in any complex society, where any single individuals will lack the resources to evaluate all the claims that he or she hears.”

It is essential in life to accept without question many ideas without testing, simply because society would never advance otherwise. We’d always be reinventing the wheel. But the next paragraph is the confession:

“This is the case for most scientific beliefs. Consider, for example, that most adults who claim to believe that natural selection can explain the evolution of species are confused about what natural selection actually is—when pressed, they often describe it as a Lamarckian process in which animals somehow give birth to offspring that are better adapted to their environments. Their belief in natural selection, then, is not rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments. Rather, this scientifically credulous sub-population are deferring to the people who say that this is how evolution works. They trust the scientists.”

There it is: Most people who “trust the scientists” on evolution have never investigated the facts, and in fact have misconceptions on what evolutionary scientists actually believe. Lamarckism is the idea that the experiences of the parent effect change in the offspring, better equipping them for their environment. That idea was around before Darwin. That idea implies purpose, i.e., that evolution is directed by environmental factors. For example, a colder climate would cause offspring to have thicker fur. Darwinian evolutionists accept no influence beyond random chance, because any direction implies a Director. They (and thoughtful people who don’t accept evolution) say the offspring with thinner fur are more likely to die without bearing offspring, leaving the ones with better adapted fur to dominate. But evolutionists take the concept further to imply that an animal that needs horns for defense will eventually have them by random chance (or at least have horny nubs), and those offspring have a survival advantage. The “intuitive” part for most laymen is that random chance is not enough to bring this about, but evolutionists have been taught to fight their intuition. The fight is because random chance (mutation) has never been observed to bring about new solutions to environmental problems faster than they can drag a species down. Check it out. Type the word “mutation” into your favorite web browser, and see how many beneficial mutations you can find in the history of recorded science. The answer is zip. In the process, you will come across words commonly associated with mutation, such as “deficiency” and “syndrome.” Just looking to probability (and not “trustworthy sources”) says mutation takes species DOWN, and natural selection removes the degredation, keeping species the SAME.

One last comment: Bloom and Weisberg have made a grammatical error, probably because they could not cognatively bring themselves to write the sentence correctly. The way the paragraph above is written, it implies that “this scientifically credulous sub-population” (referred to earlier in the paragraph as “most adults”) have this misconception about evolution because they “deferred” to scientists, who the next sentence specifies are “the people who say this is how evolution works”. I can’t believe the authors mean that scientists teach it wrong, and that is why most adults have it wrong. What they probably mean is that most people have it wrong because their intuition, combined with scant science, breeds misconception. To be consistent with the rest of the paragraph, as well as grammatically correct, the sentence should say, “this scientifically credulous sub-population are deferring to the scientists who say that this is how evolution works.” Do you see how, with their point of view, they could be led to write the sentence incorrectly?

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »