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:
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe
"Both are written by competent scientists working in the field."
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.