| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
|
Dear Colleagues, Although I am now contentedly retired to write, study, and teach my original passion of physics and astronomy, my doctorate actually is in molecular biology. While I was a fellow at the Science Policy Institute, I became all too familiar with the fallacious arguments advanced in a recent post by Dr. Morgan. Accordingly, I wish to respond to several of his contentions. Adherents of so-called "scientific creationism" usually formulate Byzantine and byssaceous arguments discounting centuries of scientific reasoning, experiment, and deduction to advance their beliefs. Using dishonesty and deception, pseudoscientists and self-described "creation scientists" often plead for the teaching of their particular religious belief as scientific fact.. For example, the types of arguments "creation scientists" use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles (e.g., the "violation of the second law of thermodynamics" argument), straw man versions of evolution (e.g., the "too improbable to evolve by chance" argument), dishonest selective use of data (e.g., the "declining speed of light" argument) appeals to emotion (e.g., the "I don't want to be related to an ape" feelings), appeals to personal incredulity (e.g., the "I don't see how this could have evolved" stance), dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (e.g., "Darwin's comments on the evolution of the eye") and simply fabricating data to suit their arguments (e.g., Gish's "bullfrog proteins"). It is not my intention to demean the good scholarly discussions taking place related to physics. I realize this is not an appropriate topic for this list and I apologize for this long post. As a scholar, I can not, however, let Dr. Morgan's references to Michael Denton and Michael Behe stand unchallenged. In a recent post Dr. Morgan wrote: "If anyone thinks there are no problems with the evolutionary model, I would suggest he spend a little less time lamenting the fact that not everyone views contemporary Darwinian evolution as beyond all question and a little more time reading the following books: Modern Darwin revisionism -- as opposed to considered debate on
differences in evolutionary mechanisms -- often attempts to portray evolutionary
mechanisms as components in a Rube Goldberg contraption.
Perhaps the most public evolutionary
critic from within the scientific community is Michael Behe -- a professor
of biochemistry at Lehigh University. Behe contends that his results with
yeast histones dispute the mechanism of functional constraints. Behe
suggests although the histones as a class are highly conserved among widely
divergent species that large parts of the histone molecule may be deleted
without significantly affecting the viability of the organism. Behe
argues, "that no direct experimental evidence has been obtained showing
rigorously that histone function is especially sensitive to amino acid
substitution..."
Behe’s conclusions, however, are based on an erroneous understanding of evolutionary mechanisms. Behe fails to account for the fact that proteins may not have had the same functional use and functional constraints in the past as they do now. In addition, the critical or active portions of molecules or proteins are usually site specific and a fraction of both the total mass and spatial volume of the protein. In fact, one would expect to be able to alter large parts of a protein as long as the functionally critical portion remained conserved. Behe makes no effort to distinguish between the functional and non-functional portions of histones. Another popular, and often quoted critic, of the molecular clock hypothesis is Michael Denton. Like Behe, Denton (a physician) also displays an errant view of evolutionary mechanisms. His assertions may be more easily dismissed because Denton makes the fundamental error of arguing the existence of extant primitive organisms. For Denton evolution in proteins demands that protein-sequences exist in a series of intermediates. Denton, of course, found what was, to him, a dramatic absence of intermediates when he comparing the cytochrome C2 of eukaryotic organisms with bacteria and found that the all eukaryotic C2 differed between 64%-72% with bacteria. Denton concluded that no eukaryotic cytochrome was any closer to the bacterial cytochrome and that this lack of "intermediates" argued against both molecular clocks and evolution in general. Denton’s data is, however, derived only from living species. Cytochromes from living organisms, no matter how primitive they may be by any characteristic, are not intermediates -- neither are their proteins. Because all eukaryotes have in common that their ancestor split at the same time from bacteria -- all eukaryotes have the same molecular distance to all prokaryotic bacteria. The molecular distance of any group to any other group is simply a measure of time elapsed since their separation. As both a scientist -- and as a person of faith -- I was deeply offended by Dr. Morgan's reliance on a seminary degree to write: "...no textual scholar in the world (of any religious stripe) believes that our Hebrew text today differs in any significant way from the original in the creation accounts of Genesis." Most people of faith understand the fact the scriptures were written and compiled by men who used their own language and philosophical tools to interpret what is believed to be a divinely inspired message. They understand that the making of scripture itself has a long and tortuous history and that scriptural content and meanings are stilled debated among theologians and scholars. Pseudoscientific "scientific creationist" interpretations of sacred scriptures distort both scripture and science. Scripture, rather than being held sacred as -- at a minimum -- a repository of social proto-memory and a wealth of allegorical and metaphorical moral teachings, is too often offered as simple "fact" without the high degree of perspicacity called for in scientific data. The truth is that absent from the all major scriptures is a particular age for the Earth. Absent also are the particular mechanisms by which the Earth and the living things on it came into existence. People who try to read these things into scripture commit grave error. It is also true that scripture can be corrupted by errors of homoioteleuton, dittography, confusions in transmitting or translation, deliberate fraud and alteration. Although science is certainly not immune from corruption by human failings, it seems a poignant unfairness to rightly subject scientific data and theory to close scrutiny while, at the same time, protecting from such scrutiny scriptural "data" held out as absolute truth. Most scientists who regard themselves as persons of faith observe the general result of "scientific creationism" to be a tawdry fusion of bad theology and bad science. In particular, "young-earth" interpretations and "creation science" adherents bind scripture with false views of science and history -- thereby sullying the beautiful works of God with the fallible doctrines and theology of men who claim to believe God yet disbelieve everything God has placed in the universe. The "fair" thing to do is exclude pseudoscience from science classrooms. There is voluminous evidence for scientific cosmology and evolutionary theory. Within the scientific community, there are no competing theories that can withstand critical scrutiny. Moreover, the classroom is not a scientific battlefield -- nor a forum for pseudoscience to appeal to younger students still unable to critically evaluate their often bizarrely obtuse scientific arguments. Accordingly, until pseudoscientists formulate a real scientific theory, and submit it for testing and validation in the mature scientific world, they have no right to demand equal time in science classrooms. Scientific cosmology and evolutionary theory have earned their place in the science curriculum. Theology, which has a great deal to offer students, properly belongs in theology classrooms or in other venues of religious teaching. Best Regards, K. Lee Lerner
|