evolution vs intelligent design (ID)
Pretty good post on the recent happens of ID here
This is good blog of a surgical oncologist, worth reading in it's own right. I'll try to read it more often. I'm of two minds of the whole ID vs evolution debate. 1) Since i am a scientist and did have initial training in evolution (B.S.) I should weigh in on the matter. 2) I don't want to be one of the many 'me too' blogs dealing with evolution, that's not my niche. 3) All the blogs dealing with evolution inevitably deal with only the evolution vs ID debate, and there's much more to evolution than simply refuting ID or theological teachings.
ANyway i sent in a letter to the Houston Chronicle yesterday regarding this whole thing (it started as an editorial by two authors writing about the Scopes Monkey Trial, there is a story on it here, this is what I said.
Dear Chronicle,
Thank you for the editorial by Perry and Olasky, I
surely won't be buying their book on the Scopes Monkey
trial. As a scientist, and one trained in
evolutionary biology, I welcome discussion about
evolution amongst the public. However, at the very
least, people should frame the evolution vs
intelligent design (ID) debate in context. First, we
now believe that evolution is done at the molecular
level (DNA), and evolution is in response to
environmental change, and that it occurs by 'spurts',
great leaps of evolutionary change in a very short
period of time. Most of the time, evolution occurs
very slowly ('drifts') Second, evolution is not
"temporary, reversable" as the authors claim, if
species are to evolve, they aquire new mutations in
their DNA, which is more or less permanent. Usually
what happens is a gene or group of genes gets copied,
and the copy is free to mutate since the original gene
still maintains it's function. Evolution is no more
reversable than a baby's birth.
I think the real issue is that it's hard to debate
with religion (I.D.); remember how Galileo got
excommunicated from the Catholic Church by arguing
that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Also, I.D. is
not testable, nor does it draw upon facts, like
Darwinian evolution (there are a multitude of facts
that back up evolution). A test of I.D. would be:
When did God create Man? Does it agree with the
fossil record or DNA evidence? (We now think that
modern man arose 200,000 years ago, via DNA dating).
Another questions: Why did God allow such a cataclism
that ended the reign of dinosaurs?
Lastly, the author's arguement that evolution is like
assembling a bicycle by throwing parts over your
shoulder is not valid. Indeed it's hard to believe
that the complex beings we are were assembled
randomly, but at the molecular level things happen
extremely quickly. Even in bacteria, the laboratory
strain E Coli divides every 30-60 minutes; that's 24
generations per day, and each generation is different
from the last thanks to DNA mutations. That's not to
say there is no room for God or I.D. in evolution; the
big unanswered question in evolution is how did life
start in the first place? DNA requires RNA and
proteins for replication, yet we know that DNA
contains the hereditary information, and produces from
it RNA and protein (the "Central Dogma"). Some think
that RNA was the first molecule, and it's been shown
that RNA can self-replicate and evolve. But how did
RNA form? Some even believe that comets or meteors
seeded the planet with the first strands of
self-replicatable RNA. Regardless, this is an even
that happened likely 4 billion years ago. In that
timeframe, anything is possible.
Anyway back to work.
Update: Figured out why I can't find the editorial published yesterday; the chronicle only has todays editorials available, and the archives only cover 'news'. Sheesh. More crushing of decent. ANyway, back to work really.
UPDATE: Interesting comment on new theology of the origin of humans and my response (in the comments).
This is good blog of a surgical oncologist, worth reading in it's own right. I'll try to read it more often. I'm of two minds of the whole ID vs evolution debate. 1) Since i am a scientist and did have initial training in evolution (B.S.) I should weigh in on the matter. 2) I don't want to be one of the many 'me too' blogs dealing with evolution, that's not my niche. 3) All the blogs dealing with evolution inevitably deal with only the evolution vs ID debate, and there's much more to evolution than simply refuting ID or theological teachings.
ANyway i sent in a letter to the Houston Chronicle yesterday regarding this whole thing (it started as an editorial by two authors writing about the Scopes Monkey Trial, there is a story on it here, this is what I said.
Dear Chronicle,
Thank you for the editorial by Perry and Olasky, I
surely won't be buying their book on the Scopes Monkey
trial. As a scientist, and one trained in
evolutionary biology, I welcome discussion about
evolution amongst the public. However, at the very
least, people should frame the evolution vs
intelligent design (ID) debate in context. First, we
now believe that evolution is done at the molecular
level (DNA), and evolution is in response to
environmental change, and that it occurs by 'spurts',
great leaps of evolutionary change in a very short
period of time. Most of the time, evolution occurs
very slowly ('drifts') Second, evolution is not
"temporary, reversable" as the authors claim, if
species are to evolve, they aquire new mutations in
their DNA, which is more or less permanent. Usually
what happens is a gene or group of genes gets copied,
and the copy is free to mutate since the original gene
still maintains it's function. Evolution is no more
reversable than a baby's birth.
I think the real issue is that it's hard to debate
with religion (I.D.); remember how Galileo got
excommunicated from the Catholic Church by arguing
that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Also, I.D. is
not testable, nor does it draw upon facts, like
Darwinian evolution (there are a multitude of facts
that back up evolution). A test of I.D. would be:
When did God create Man? Does it agree with the
fossil record or DNA evidence? (We now think that
modern man arose 200,000 years ago, via DNA dating).
Another questions: Why did God allow such a cataclism
that ended the reign of dinosaurs?
Lastly, the author's arguement that evolution is like
assembling a bicycle by throwing parts over your
shoulder is not valid. Indeed it's hard to believe
that the complex beings we are were assembled
randomly, but at the molecular level things happen
extremely quickly. Even in bacteria, the laboratory
strain E Coli divides every 30-60 minutes; that's 24
generations per day, and each generation is different
from the last thanks to DNA mutations. That's not to
say there is no room for God or I.D. in evolution; the
big unanswered question in evolution is how did life
start in the first place? DNA requires RNA and
proteins for replication, yet we know that DNA
contains the hereditary information, and produces from
it RNA and protein (the "Central Dogma"). Some think
that RNA was the first molecule, and it's been shown
that RNA can self-replicate and evolve. But how did
RNA form? Some even believe that comets or meteors
seeded the planet with the first strands of
self-replicatable RNA. Regardless, this is an even
that happened likely 4 billion years ago. In that
timeframe, anything is possible.
Anyway back to work.
Update: Figured out why I can't find the editorial published yesterday; the chronicle only has todays editorials available, and the archives only cover 'news'. Sheesh. More crushing of decent. ANyway, back to work really.
UPDATE: Interesting comment on new theology of the origin of humans and my response (in the comments).
It is described as a single Law and moral principle, offering its own proof, one in which the reality of God confirms and responds to an act of perfect faith, by a direct intervention into the natural world, providing a correction to human nature including a change in natural law [biology], consciousness and human ethical perception [proof of the soul], providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition!
So while proponents of ID may have got the God part right, but if this development demonstrates itself to be what it claims, all religious teaching and understanding of ID are wholly in error, and the proponents of evolution who have rightly used that conception to beat down the credibility of religious tradition, but who have also used it to deny the potential for God, are in for a very rude shock. Wonderful irony!
However improbable, the impossible may have become possible. This is no joke, no hoax and not spam.
A free pdf download of the manuscript is available at www.energon.uklinux.net
Anything religious is based on belief and is not a testable hypothesis. Evolution is not based on belief and is a testable hypothesis.
You can make up your own mind on which you believe, and I think people should feel free to believe whatever they want. But science and religion are vastly different, that's all.