Download
1 / 87
870 likes | 892 Views
Delve into the controversial debate between evolution and intelligent design, touching on theology, science, history, and societal conflicts. Discover the varying perspectives that shape this ongoing discourse.
E N D
Are “Problems with Evolution”Evidence for Intelligent Design? Brownville Lyceum February 12, 2006 (197th Anniversary of Darwin’s Birth, & the First Annual Evolution Sunday) Chuck Austerberry, Ph.D. Biology Department Nebraska Religious Coalition Creighton University for Science Education
1840 Portrait of Charles Darwin (1809-82) by George Richmond (one year after Darwin’s marriage to Emma Wedgewood) http://images.art.com/images/-/George-Richmond/Portrait-of-Charles-Darwin-1809-82,-1840--C11725357.jpeg
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution • Novel heritable variations arise. • Changes (mutations) in genes • New combinations of genes • Some variations are more likely than others to be passed on to offspring. • Natural selection • Sexual selection • Genetic drift • Accumulated variations may differ among populations divergence speciation.
Why is Evolution Controversial? • Origins are important in both science and religion. • Creation theology developed centuries before evolutionary science, so different terms and concepts are used in each.
Why is Evolution Controversial? • Not compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2. • Confusion concerning the relationship between science and religion in general, and between evolution and creation in particular.
Such Confusion Isn’t New • Evolution is not the only scientific theory that has seemed to threaten belief in God. • For example, Leibnitz attacked Newton's theory of gravity as subversive of religion. • Such a view was temporary, as Charles Darwin noted in the second edition of On the Origin of Species, and he added: "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock anyone."
A Bit More About Newton • Emphasized natural theology. • Attributed the design of the clock-like universe to a divine Clockmaker. • Why else would the planetary orbits share the same direction and plane, unlike comets? • Newton also assumed that God periodically intervened to ensure stability of mechanism. • Private papers show he was not a traditional Christian, but natural theology became for many the most important support for their religious faith - until Darwin.
Creation in the Bible A literal reading of Genesis 1 & 2 is rejected by many Christian and Jewish theologians and religious bodies, for reasons that often have nothing to do with science.
Creation in the Bible (cont.) • Nonetheless, it is the right of each student to freely choose religious beliefs, including Biblical literalism. • Science teaching standards do not call for personal acceptance of evolutionary theory, just an understanding of it.
Other Opposition to Evolution Not all religious objections to evolution are based on Biblical literalism. Other objections include: • Metaphysical status of “chance”; lack of predictability, purpose, and design. • Competition and death as part of the mechanism of evolution. • Continuity between humans and other species; question of the human soul.
Related Controversies • Religion's role in public society, especially education • Local versus centralized control of public education • Power struggles within the G.O.P in some states • Competition between alternative worldviews
Sources of Controversy • Many opponents of evolution are motivated by their theism. • Some proponents of evolution are motivated by their atheism.
Other Sources of Controversy • Misuse of evolution for pseudoscientific justification of immoral behavior (Social Darwinism) • Misuse of scientific ignorance as "evidence" for a Creator (intelligent design theory)
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory • Unlike creationism, ID does not arise from Biblical literalism. • Some ID proponents accept common descent. • ID does not identify the designer. • ID postulates that scientific evidence can, and does, prove that life must have been designed.
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory • Unlike creationism, ID does not arise from Biblical literalism, and is not necessarily equivalent to creationism or "creation science"? • Creationists reject evidence that contradicts a literalistic interpretation of Genesis, but many ID proponents don't expect the scientific evidence to match the Biblical creation accounts
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory • Some ID proponents accept common descent. • Many do not. "Sure, there's evidence that evolution takes place within a species-but the fossil record has not yielded evidence of one species becoming another . . ." (Charles Colson, Christianity Today, April 2005, Vol. 49, No. 4, Page 112)
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory • ID does not identify the designer. • Religious motivation undeniable nonetheless. • Sad that such denials are made (e.g. Dover trial) • Sad that pressure exists to hide one’s religious motivation (e.g. Guillermo Gonzalez at ISU). • True, extra-scientific motivations can lead to biased conduct of science (lots of examples!). • Also true, however, that great discoveries have been made by scientists so motivated (also lots of examples). • Copernicus, wanting to salvage the Great Circle Tradition. • Francis Crick, wanting to disprove that life requires God.
Example of Strong Motivation! • In 1976, Jonathan Wells writes, "Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me to enter a PhD program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/0-Toc.htm)
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory • ID postulates that scientific evidence can, and does, prove that life must have been designed. • Herein is the main problem with ID. Why? • Conclusions about whether any thing or event is designed or not designed are based on a comparison of two probabilities. • If the species of the designer is open, and especially if the designer need not be subject to natural laws, then it’s impossible to calculate the probability that something was designed. • Thus, all “evidence” for ID is negative: supposedly intractable scientific mysteries.
Problems with (ID) Theory • “Evidence” for ID is based entirely on supposedly intractable problems facing Darwinian evolutionary theory (93% of Ohio science professors see no such “evidence”). • ID is rejected by professional scientific organizations & peer-reviewed journals. • ID is potentially valid as a metaphysical position, but not as a scientific theory.
Intelligent Design (ID) Theory • This limitation was recognized by David Hume and Immanuel Kant almost immediately after Newtonian natural theology began, but … • Few people were aware of such philosophical argument. • Thus, we still have the repeating pattern: • Cast a valid open scientific question (or an invalid one!) as if it were a fatal blow to a scientific theory. • Reject the science, and substitute God (“God of the gaps”) for the unknown cause.
The latest anti-evolution strategy. . . Explicitly mandate intelligent design theory? No, especially not since Dover. Instead . . . Teach “abrupt appearance” (of species) and other “problems” with evolution.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/images/origin/millurey.gifhttp://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/images/origin/millurey.gif http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/images/origin/millurey.gif
“Icons of Evolution” Question 1 • Q: ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery? • A: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have been produced on the early Earth. When modern scientists changed the experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the Earth's early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.
“Icons of Evolution” Question 2 • Q: DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life? • A: Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian - aren't these "major groups"? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as "modern"; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals - but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from developmental biology.
“Icons of Evolution” Question 3 • Q: HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence? • A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence). Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of degrees of relatedness. Homology is not "evidence" for common ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and dissimilarity of anatomical structures.
“Icons of Evolution” Question 4 • Q: VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked? • A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. The union of evolution and developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.
“Icons of Evolution” Question 5 • Q: ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it? • A: The notion of a "missing link" is an out-of-date misconception about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils) shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a transitional fossil in that it shows both reptile ancestry and bird specializations. Wells's claim that "supposed ancestors" are younger than Archaeopteryx is false. These fossils are not ancestors but relatives of Archaeopteryx and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger than you!
“Icons of Evolution” Question 6 • Q: PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged? • A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation. The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific evidence for natural selection.
“Icons of Evolution” Question 7 • Q: DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred? • A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection: that populations change their physical features in response to changes in the environment. The finch studies carefully - exquisitely - documented how the physical features of an organism can affect its success in reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!
“Icons of Evolution” Question 8 • Q: MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory? • A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies, they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing "raw material" for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures that become available for further experimentation and potential new uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway, the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide variation for natural selection to work on.
