tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post7309355345346122026..comments2024-02-11T06:57:23.174-05:00Comments on SchansBlog: Darwinism: Science and FantasyEric Schansberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16147388189415035752noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-44579305351295936912007-10-26T22:46:00.000-04:002007-10-26T22:46:00.000-04:00Behe says evolution can't produce novel molecular ...Behe says evolution can't produce novel molecular machines. But this is precisely what happens every time a bacterium evolves resistance to an antibiotic, or an insect evolves resistance to a pesticide: a genetic mutation results in a new protein (usually a modification of an existing protein) that physically locks onto or cleaves the toxic chemical. What Behe and others do not get is that nature is a great recycler: the 'search space' of evolution is much smaller than often asserted by creationists; all that gets searched are proteins similar to the complement already in hand. And the evidence is abundant that <I>this works</I>.<BR/><BR/>Behe seems to be skeptical of macroevolution. But we now know that animals (worms and vertebrates alike) all have a small set of genes known as homeobox genes, that control the development of the body plans of the organism. Small changes in these genes can create radically different body plans. Again, the distance that evolution must travel even in macroevolution is not nearly as insurmountable as the creationists or ID people think. (I gather that homeobox genes are believed to have originated with segmented worms; they have been duplicated and modified as animals evolved from worms long ago, maybe 600 million years ago, to current much more complex body plans.)<BR/><BR/>But I'm struck by your suggestion that ID and TE are compatible, that the one might explain things not explained by the other. Perhaps our only disagreement now is how much TE and how much ID is needed to explain the development of life. I would say it's almost entirely TE. I should conclude by saying how helpful I found the book by Kenneth Miller; he does a very good job of explaining why evolution (Darwinian TE) is compatible, not necessarily with a direct reading of Genesis, but with the core of Christian theology (the problem of evil, etc).William Langhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04308959355199753193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-35625978337465807172007-10-26T21:33:00.000-04:002007-10-26T21:33:00.000-04:00Perhaps we have a different definition of the "fou...Perhaps we have a different definition of the "foundations of modern biology". <BR/><BR/>If ID is correct, then evolution could still do 99.99% of the changes that would "explain" (or at least, weave a nice comprehensive story) for the development of life (if not its origins). <BR/><BR/>In ID terms, it's a false dichotomy to say that it must be "Darwinian chance plus necessity (variation plus natural selection)" OR design. Again, ID allows for the former doing much, but ultimately, not being able to explain all. <BR/><BR/>And ID seems perfectly consistent or quite consistent with theistic evolution (TE). TE could range from God setting evolution in motion-- and then steps aside while evolution takes care of the rest. (I suppose, at least philosophically, that this would still be ID of a sort.) Or TE could allow for God setting evolution in motion and intervening on occasion (i.e., ID). <BR/><BR/>Finally, you haven't yet commented on the just-so stories I pointed out in the original posting-- the main reason I posted this in the first place. Your thoughts there?Eric Schansberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16147388189415035752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-40682107880006118002007-10-26T18:05:00.000-04:002007-10-26T18:05:00.000-04:00Eric: ID is not about denial of basic biology, but...Eric: <I>ID is not about denial of basic biology, but wrestling with the extent to which biology provides an "explanation". </I><BR/><BR/>Oh, yes it is; ID is most assuredly a denial of the foundations of modern biology. Ask any of your colleagues at IU Southeast in biology, and they will explain (in as much detail as you could possibly wish) why that is so. <BR/><BR/>Eric: <I>For the record, the next paragraph was utterly unrelated to whether ID is science. In fact, ID does not dispute the evidence from evolution. It only wrestles with the supposition that evolution is not sufficient as a comprehensive "explanation" of the development of life.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not always clear from what I've read that all the ID people believe in descent with modification from a common ancestor. But if we assume that this is the case, we are left to argue merely about the mechanism for speciation—is it Darwinian chance plus necessity (variation plus natural selection), or is it design? It's clear from my knowledge of biology that contingency is a much better explanation than design for how life developed. But in fact, <I>it is unnecessary to assume God had nothing to do with creation even if we accept Darwinism</I>. That is, God could have used evolution to do the creating for him. This is of course theistic evolution, and describes the position of the Roman Catholic Church and other churches; and it is also my own position.<BR/><BR/>Eric: <I>I can commend Dembski's book, "The Design Revolution: Answering The Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design".</I><BR/><BR/>I have two books by Demski. I find him less than convincing because in his writing he doesn't really demonstrate any deep knowledge of biology. He offers abstract philosophical/mathematical arguments instead of considering actual biological systems. (By training, Dembski is a philosopher and a mathematician, but he is now a professor of Christian apologetics at a Baptist seminary.)William Langhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04308959355199753193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-33389252686905391702007-10-26T12:58:00.000-04:002007-10-26T12:58:00.000-04:00I would add that I've only read one book on ID (in...I would add that I've only read one book on ID (in addition to a number of essays). As such, I can commend Dembski's book, "The Design Revolution: Answering The Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design". <BR/><BR/>I will soon blog separately on some "myths about ID". Most people don't understand what ID does and does not claim (including many of its "proponents" and opponents). But in my experience (from Dembski's book), what it does and does not say about evolution is not all that complicated.Eric Schansberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16147388189415035752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-48543746358498241802007-10-26T08:55:00.000-04:002007-10-26T08:55:00.000-04:00Q&AWL: Have you read any books critical of intelli...Q&A<BR/><BR/>WL: Have you read any books critical of intelligent design? <BR/><BR/>Me: No. I've read several essays and talked with proponents but have not read a book of that type yet. I'll acquire Miller's book and get it on my reading list. <BR/><BR/>WL: I should mention that my rejection of ID is neither knee-jerk or ill-informed. I have read (indeed, I own) seven or eight pro-ID books...<BR/><BR/>Me: Thanks for looking thoroughly into both sides!<BR/><BR/>WL: The evidence for evolution (the great age of the Earth, and descent with modification from a common ancestor) is devastating and utterly convincing.<BR/><BR/>Me: For the record, the next paragraph was utterly unrelated to whether ID is science. In fact, ID does not dispute the evidence from evolution. It only wrestles with the supposition that evolution is not sufficient as a comprehensive "explanation" of the development of life. <BR/><BR/>WL: A faith that depends on the denial of the foundation of basic biology, science that has been established by many independent lines of evidence, is a very shaky faith indeed.<BR/><BR/>Me: I agree with you-- and so do the academic proponents of ID. ID is not about denial of basic biology, but wrestling with the extent to which biology provides an "explanation". <BR/><BR/>Ironically, the first part of my original post makes the same point: it's a very shaky faith that requires just-so stories for the origins (as well as the development) of life.Eric Schansberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16147388189415035752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8241505550351823820.post-12881987807518506692007-10-25T23:27:00.000-04:002007-10-25T23:27:00.000-04:00Eric,Have you read any books critical of intellige...Eric,<BR/><BR/>Have you read any books critical of intelligent design? There are several fine books I could recommend, but the one I will mention here is Kenneth Miller, <I>Finding Darwin's God</I>.<BR/><BR/>Miller is a prominent Brown University biologist, textbook author, and devout Roman Catholic. He explains why ID is poor theology as well as bad science. In particular, he rips Michael Behe's lungs out. <BR/><BR/>I should mention that my rejection of ID is neither knee-jerk or ill-informed. I have read (indeed, I own) seven or eight pro-ID books, including books by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Cornelius Hunter, Lee M. Spetner, and Jonathan Wells. After reading these books, and a variety of mainstream biology and evolution books (including textbooks as well as popularizations), I have reached the conclusion that there is little or no science in ID. <BR/><BR/>The evidence for evolution (the great age of the Earth, and descent with modification from a common ancestor) is devastating and utterly convincing. <BR/><BR/>Two examples: It now appears that eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei, as opposed to bacteria) originated as symbiotic relationships between different types of bacteria. One critical example: Eukaryotic cells contain mitochondria, organelles that process energy in the cell. These are now understood to be cyanobacteria. (They even contain bacteria-like plasmids, loops of their own DNA.)<BR/><BR/>Another example: There are certain viruses, including HIV, that splice their genes into the DNA of the cells of their hosts. Sometimes, these genes get into the DNA of egg cells. So they are passed along to the descendants of the hosts. This is referred to as "endogenous retroviruses." Humans have these in their genomes. So do chimpanzees. The critical point is that humans share with chimps certain of the same (inactive) retroviral genes. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor of about 6 million years ago, which had the original copies of the endogenous retroviral genes. It is important to understand that these play no role or function in the genes of the hosts; they are genetic parasites. And they provide convincing evidence of a common ancestor of chimps and humans.<BR/><BR/>I should conclude with the thought: A faith that depends on the denial of the foundation of basic biology, science that has been established by many independent lines of evidence, is a very shaky faith indeed.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes,<BR/><BR/>WilliamWilliam Langhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04308959355199753193noreply@blogger.com