Science

Could Monkeys Write Shakespeare?

Christian Buckley — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:22:47 -0700

Can I fly? Can a duck shoot a shotgun? Is a bike still a bike without wheels?

I could list a bunch of other stupid questions but this one has more importance.

For some time now the evolutionary proof involving random typing by monkeys in an attempt to recreate Shakespeare’s works has been ongoing. The basic idea is that enough monkeys with enough time and enough chances could produce the same works as Shakespeare.

Enter this story on BBC.COM:

“Virtual monkeys write Shakespeare

A few million virtual monkeys are close to re-creating the complete works of Shakespeare by randomly mashing keys on virtual typewriters.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15060310

Funny how the title of this story is the opposite of what the story really says. Actually the story is that they are not even close and will never be.

The problem, as highlighted by the story, is that after a smidgen of math and common sense, it became clear that based purely on random action with no design or rules for phrase selection there was less than a snowballs chance in hell – even though there is no hell – but you get the point.

Thus, what was added to the experiment was a very simple twist – we will accept those random outcomes that get us closer to our known goal (Shakespeare’s Works) and discard those that don’t. We can then begin to amass the correct results and eventually get to our goal. But that is not randomness – that is design with a desired and known outcome.

What started out as a proof for random evolution ended as a proof for the fact that random evolution is not possible within the time the world has been around unless you know what you are trying to evolve into. Stated simply – you might be able to evolve a human randomly if you have all the parts (the letters) and know what a human is (Shakespeare’s Works) and know how to put them together (selecting the word fragments that are correct) to reach the desired outcome – but again probably not in the time the world has been around.

Basically – I can build a car if you give me all the parts, an instruction manual the tells me how to put them together and points out every error I make, and a picture of the car to work from. Not likely I will randomly build a car with a bunch of parts I have to put together with no rules or idea for the result.

Ignoring the math and logic, the interesting point is this. The story is not that monkeys can’t do it. That would be obvious to my 8 year old if I asked her the question at the Zoo while looking at a monkey: “Hey daughter – do you think that Monkey could write Romeo and Juliet? Are you okay dad? Seriously are you okay? Mom! Dad is not okay.”

The story is that the writer would rather misstate the headline than accept the truth and its consequence.

Oh, and is a unicycle a bicycle? Seems obvious but google it if you have nothing to do.

Do Butterflies Prove the Existence of God?

Kyle Strobel — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:01:37 -0700

Do butterflies prove the existence of God? It is an odd question to be sure. Watch this short video on youtube that addresses this. Are butterflies simply too intricate to be created without an intelligent designer?

Freaked Out By Bio Technology

Mark Russell — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:43:11 -0700

I’ve been a part of the Lausanne movement since I attended a Lausanne Younger Leaders Gathering in 2006. Coming out of that congress, some of my new friends and I started a conversation about what it means to be an evangelical and did we want to be one. Some of that conversation has taken the form of a book called Routes & Radishes And Other Things To Talk About At The Evangelical Crossroads.

One of the things that prompted the conversation and frustrated me with evangelicals were the somewhat narrow views regarding social engagement. From what I experienced social engagement was either defined as simply telling everyone to get saved or promoting 2-3 “values” that coincidentally aligned with the political platform of a particular party.

I decided in order to stay in Lausanne and in the evangelical movement, there needed to be some significant progress in processing and articulating thoughtful social engagement. If our faith is true, surely it has implications for everything we do.

To be a part of that process, I became a member of a couple of Lausanne think tanks, one the theology working group and other, the newly formed, Government, Business and Academy think tank (GBA).

At one of our first meetings here in Cape Town we were treated to a presentation by Nigel Cameron, President of the Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies in Washington, DC, and a Research Professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

According to Nigel, there are not many people of faith thinking deeply about bio-technology. I know that I haven’t. But after listening to Nigel I am completely freaked out.

Don’t get me wrong; Nigel is not a bombastic over the top guy. In fact, he is your typical reserved Brit who didn’t raise his voice one decibel his entire presentation. He spoke with a frankness and calmness that made you feel like he was giving you directions to the soda machine.

However, he was spelling out how bio-technology has the radical potential to change our lives.

He said that in the next 7-8 years we will see changes as radical as we have seen in the last forty. The speed of technological advancement is getting faster and faster. The potential for creating human beings and manipulating human beings is becoming increasingly more effective and easier. We are not at the end of the technological revolution but rather we are at its beginning.

Most notably, he said there will be radical life extension. In the western world, the average life span has nearly doubled in the last generation. This will probably continue.

The power and efficiency of recreational pharmaceutical drugs will radically improve, giving us greater powers to manipulate and control our feelings.

The ability to create virtual realities will get close to perfection paving the way for brain to brain communication.

Artificial intelligences will not be a thing for science fiction novels. They are right around the corner.

He cited, Bill Joy, the founder of Sun Microsystems, who said that through technology we will either destroy ourselves or create robotic creatures smarter and superior to us.

It’s not that I have never heard any of this before. Well, frankly I hadn’t heard all of it before. But what freaked me out was that I was being told all of this by a stoic Brit who had seriously researched the topic and had occupied esteemed research positions in recognized universities. Nigel is no reactionary alarmist. He is a thoughtful intellectual and when he says our world is about to change as we know it, I believe him.

Another thing that freaks me out is that I have never thought about this and from what Nigel says there are not many people of faith thinking about it either. Remember the old phrase, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing."

But I have hope because there are some people here in Cape Town, South Africa who realize that we can no longer lounge at church for an hour a week and count that as a meaningful faith. For our faith to be anything of significance it means bringing it to bear on the most challenging questions of our day.

Intelligent Design Uncensored

Sean McDowell — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:35:20 -0700

William Dembski has done it again. His recent book “Intelligent Design Uncensored” (co-written with Jonathan Witt) is a marvelous introduction to the controversy surrounding the ID movement. If you’re unfamiliar with intelligent design, or you want a primer, this is the book for you. While they cover the usual ground for a book on intelligent design, the uniqueness of this book comes from its engaging and sometimes even humorous writing style.

This book is very timely because there is a pressing need to get the message of ID to young people. While the arguments for ID have been developed considerably, many people still assume Darwinism is the only game in town. Last week I received an email from a high school student in Orange County who had a class debate on intelligent design versus evolution. I helped him prepare, so he sent me an email to let me know how it went. Here’s an excerpt from what he wrote:

“I think one of the most shocking things was that the teacher asked kids to raise their hands if they had never heard of intelligent design before and probably about 3/4 of the class raised their hand. The students we argued against had a hard time believing what we were presenting as evidence. They didn’t know about some of it too. They didn't even know about the evidence about the probabilities, didn't think the fine-tuning related, and thought that the TTSS could refute the flagellum. We showed how it didn't but it was just hard for them and the audience to believe that what we were saying was actually true. I feel like they have been somewhat indoctrinated through school to think there are no evolutionary weaknesses.”

This young man is absolutely right. So many young people are simply given one side of the controversy. That’s why books like “Intelligent Design Uncensored” are so important. Pick up a copy for yourself and then give it to a young person, teacher, or youth pastor to read.

There are a few breakthrough points made in “ID Uncensored” worth highlighting.

First, despite the claim that evolution is the overwhelming consensus, Dembski and Witt cite a study by the Finkelstein Institute, which found that some 60 percent of U.S. Medical doctors think that intelligent design played some role in the origin of humans. This study also included considerable percentages of Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, and “Spiritual but not religious” doctors. This should give pause to those who claim that only Christian fundamentalists embrace intelligent design (p. 36-38).

Second, intelligent design asks two basic questions. (1) Is it logically possible that things in nature were designed? (2) If so, how could we tell? To grasp how reasonable there assertions are Dembski and Witt ask us to consider someone making the following statement: “It isn’t even logically possible that some things in nature were designed, and even if some things were, it isn’t even logically possible that such things bear evidence of having been designed.” Even most people who reject the arguments of ID can appreciate how wrongheaded such an approach is. The claims of ID are certainly logically possible and should be evaluated on their merit (not tossed out before consideration, as many want to do).

Third, Dembski and Witt urge caution to graduate students and teachers without tenure who are ID-friendly. They say, “We know this from personal experience. While some Darwinists welcome open discussion of the evidence, many more in positions of power have gone to great lengths to shut down open conversations about the evidence.” They admit this sounds melodramatic, but they go on to give many practical examples of ID supporters who lost jobs, tenure, and students who were denied PhDs.

Overall, I hope “Intelligent Design Uncensored” will help propel the ID movement forward. We’ve come a long way in the past couple decades, but we still have a significant way to go.

Intelligent Design Is Alive and Well

Sean McDowell — Mon, 17 May 2010 10:21:25 -0700

Last year defenders of Darwinian evolution came out in full force to celebrate the 150^th anniversary since the release of “The Origin of Species” and the 200^th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. New books were released, lectures were sponsored, and “new” missing-link fossils were discovered (Ardi and Ida). The goal was simple: to convince the public that Darwin’s theory is overwhelmingly true and competitors such as ID and creationism are false. Were they successful?

Last Friday night Biola University sponsored an event with Stephen Meyer, leading ID proponent and author of “Signature in the Cell,” that shows ID is alive and well. About 1,500 people attended, and many more watched the event live by simulcast (some were even watching in Kenya!).

Before taking questions from two of his critics as well as the audience, Meyer gave a lecture on the DNA evidence for design. He discussed how Darwin’s main contribution was to “show” how design could arise without a designer. The world may appear designed, but according to Darwin, such design is illusory. Darwin is believed to have demonstrated how life could adapt without the need of any guiding intelligence (hence, “natural” selection rather than “intelligent” selection).

While Meyer has problems with Darwin’s explanation for the diversity of biological life, he is focused on a more fundamental issue: the origin of life and the nature of DNA. According to Meyer, the question is not where information is stored in DNA. And the question is not what DNA does. The enigma involves the origin of DNA—its source. Where does the information in DNA come from? (For an in-depth development of the argument for design from DNA, see Meyer’s new book, “Signature in the Cell.” It’s 500 pages long, but, in my opinion, provides one of the most compelling arguments for design).

There are three competing explanations for the origin of DNA. The first option is chance. But as Meyer points out, this explanation went out of vogue in the late 1960s because there are simply not enough resources (time and matter) in the universe for it to occur by itself. Specifically, the odds of getting one short protein of 150 amino acids are 1 in 10¹⁹⁵ (to give this perspective, there are only 10¹⁷seconds since the big bang and 10⁸⁰elementary particles in the entire universe). The chance that life could emerge by chance in the universe is effectively zero.

The second option is necessity. The idea is that just as there is an attraction in salt crystals, there would be an attraction in the origin of life. The problem, however, is that while crystals are specified (ordered), they are not complex. DNA is both specified and complex and cannot be explained in the same way as salt crystals. Bonding forces no more generate the information in DNA than magnetic forces in refrigerator letters are responsible for the message, “Take out the trash, mom.”

The final explanation is a combination of chance and necessity (a.k.a., pre-biotic natural selection). The problem is that this particular explanation begs the question. Natural selection only works if there is first an organism to select. Natural selection is only a factor once DNA and protein exist. Thus, it cannot be used as an explanation for the origin of the first DNA.

So, what is the best explanation for the origin of DNA? Scientists often use what is called “the inference to the best explanation.” In fact, this is the very reasoning Darwin himself used in the Origin of Species. Simply put, the best explanation posits a cause that is known to produce the effect in question. So, what is the best explanation for the origin of information? Natural forces are at a loss. But we know from our uniform experience that a mind can produce information. In fact, whenever we find information and trace it back to its source we always find a mind (e.g., books, computer programs, messages written in the sand). Henry Quastler famously said, “The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity”

Meyer was quick to point out that this is not an argument from ignorance, as critics often claim, but a positive argument from what we know about the source of information. There is not only the lack of a natural explanation, but positive reason to point toward intelligence. One of the most powerful things about this conclusion is that it is completely immune to a Darwinian attack. Even if Darwinian evolution were true, it would do nothing to undermine the case for design in DNA (Darwin’s theory allegedly shows how one species morphs into another, but it has nothing to say as to the origin of the first life).

After the lecture, his critics raised good questions, but Meyer was ready. They quibbled at some of the secondary issues, but in no way undermined his key claim that DNA is best explained as the result of a mind. One critic even said that he had no explanation for the information content of DNA but was confident there would eventually be a naturalistic explanation. Meyer was quick to point out that naturalists have failed to explain any of the most interesting questions of life such as the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, and so on.

Meyer emphasized that an increasing number of scientists are opening up to ID. Even though it may take another generation (or so), there is a renewed openness and skepticism about Darwin’s grand claims. We live in an information age where materialist explanations may be in jeopardy. This is true in the United States as well as in Europe, although maybe not quite as widespread.

That 1,500 people of all ages (from junior high all the way up) would come out on a Friday night for a lecture and discussion about DNA and the evidence for design shows that the ID movement is not dead in the water. In fact, it may be just getting started.

Should Christians Embrace Evolution?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:05:37 -0700

The title of the book Should Christians Embrace Evolution? caught my attention because I’ve been thinking about this for some time. The interesting question is not whether Christians can believe in evolution. Of course they can. There are many Christian apologists and theologians who believe in evolution that I deeply respect, such as Alister McGrath and Dinesh D’Souza.

The question is whether or not Darwinian evolution can be wedded with orthodox Christianity without doing damage to either one. For the past couple years I’ve read the main works of theistic evolutionists such as Francis Collins (The Language of God), Kenneth Miller (Only A Theory), Denis Alexander (Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?), and Karl Giberson (Saving Darwin). They all seem to have a common goal: mold Christian theology to fit neo-Darwinian evolution. In other words, strip Christianity down to its bare bones so it can be consistent with evolution. After reading these works one thing become clear: theology can be molded and adapted to accommodate evolutionary theory, but not vice versa.

Should Christians Embrace Evolution? raises both theological and scientific objections to theistic evolution. In the foreword to the book, Wayne Grudem says that adopting theistic evolution leads to many positions contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Grudem criticizes our secular culture for accepting evolution as the grand meta-narrative for life, which he says, allows them to live without moral restraint and fear before God. As for theistic evolutionists, he criticizes them for acquiescing to this massive attack on the Christian faith and believing that although God exists, he is virtually an invisible deistic being “who makes absolutely no detectable difference in the nature of living beings as they exist today” (p. 10). It won’t be long, says Grudem, before people conclude that God isn’t even a part of the picture.

You may disagree with Grudem, but his criticism (as well as the rest of the contributors) shouldn’t be ignored. People quick to embrace evolution without considering the theological and scientific implications should read this book and count the cost. But don’t be fooled by the title. It’s not a two-sided discussion about what Christians should believe. The book ends with these words: “Should Christians embrace evolution? Our answer is an unequivocal ‘no’!”

One particular issue raised by this book is the historicity of Adam. The popular theistic evolutionary site (www.biologos.org) has recently had some posts about this very topic.

Karl Giberson, for example, is convinced that Genesis is not historical at all. He concludes, “The Genesis story of creation loses all contact with natural history and starts to look strangely like an old-fashioned fairy tale that might teach a lesson, but certainly makes no claims to historicity” (Saving Darwin, 8). To support this claim, he points to the fact that the word “Adam” in our English Bibles simply means “man” in Hebrew and “Eve” means “woman.” Giberson says, “I began to wonder how an old story about a guy named ‘Man’ in a magical garden who had a mate named ‘Woman’ made from one of his ribs could ever be mistaken for actual history.”

In his chapter, “Adam and Eve,” in Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Michael Reeves asks why we must choose between “Adam” being used as a literary device and as a reference to a historical person. Literary devices need not imply non-literal. There are many examples in the Bible where the two are compatible. He lays out a few additional arguments for the historicity of Adam.

Scriptural support for the historicity of Adam is also found in the genealogies of Genesis 5, 1 Chronicles 1, and Luke 3. While genealogies do admit names for various reasons, there are no known instances of the addition of mythological or fictional characters to an otherwise historical list. Furthermore, Jesus’ teaches on marriage (Matt 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-9) as well as Jude’s reference to Adam (Jude 14) indicates that they viewed him as historical. And when Paul spoke of Adam being created first and woman being created from him he was clearly assuming a historical account of Genesis 2 (1 Cor 11:8-9; 1 Tim 2:11-14). It is the assumption of both Old Testament and New Testament writers that Adam was indeed historical.

Perhaps the most significant difficulty with denying the historicity of Adam, says Reeves, is theological. Paul’s theology is based upon the historical reality of both Adam and Jesus. Consider Romans 5:12-21, where Paul contrasts the “one man” (Adam) through which sin entered the world with the righteousness of the “one man” (Jesus) through whom justification was offered to all men. Paul repeatedly compares and contrasts Adam and Christ, as if they are both historical figures. He makes a similar argument in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. Paul says that death came by “one man” (Adam) but also resurrection came by “one man” (Jesus). All died in Adam, but all were made alive in Christ. The New American Commentary: Romans clarifies,

Redemption is the story of two men. The first man disobeyed God and led the entire human race in the wrong direction. The second man obeyed God and provides justification for all who will turn to him in faith. No matter how devastating the sin of the first, the redemptive work of the second reverses the consequences of that sin and restores people to the favor of God. Only by grasping the seriousness of the first is one able to appreciate the remarkable magnanimity of the second.

Paul not only uses the same language in reference to Adam and Christ, but his very argument depends upon the historicity of both. Paul’s logic would unravel if his comparison entailed a mythical figure (Adam) and a historical person (Christ). Michael Reeves explains, “With a mythical Adam, then, Christ might as well be—in fact, would do better to be—a symbol of divine forgiveness and new life. Instead, the story Paul tells is of a historical problem of sin, guilt and death being introduced into the creation, a problem that required a historical solution” (p. 45). To remove the historical problem of sin is to seemingly transform Paul’s gospel. What would be the need of the cross, resurrection, virgin birth, and incarnation if sin did not ontologically enter the human race with Adam?

I’m not sure how to get around this problem, although I’ve read some creative attempts. But it’s only one of a few theological problems that emerge for theistic evolution. You may end up disagreeing with the authors of Should Christians Embrace Evolution? but they do deserve a hearing by thoughtful Christians.

Signs of Intelligence

Dave Sterrett — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:31:35 -0700

The concept of Intelligent of Design (I.D.) teaches that there is a design in the universe. The design may be observed in several areas such as the intricate astronomical evidence of the universe’s origin or the detailed information discovered in DNA. Most proponents of I.D. believe that it is more probable that the universe was designed purposely by some form of Intelligence than by pure chance or luck. Although proponents of I.D. do not necessarily believe that the universe was designed by God, it is true that many of them will acknowledge that only a Being who is very powerful (like God) could design the universe. Even the famous atheist Richard Dawkins, who claims to be antagonistic towards the concept of an Intelligent Designer, in his interview with Ben Stein hinted at the possibility that aliens could have designed the world.[i]

Modern atheists will use arguments similar to the ancient philosopher Lucretius who appeal to the imperfections of the world to disprove that God was the creator. But imperfect design still implies a designer. When atheists ask why an all-benevolent being would create a world with natural disasters, disease, and death, they are actually asking a theological question about the nature of God. The design argument doesn’t defend the character of God’s goodness or perfection. I.D. simply argues that empirical evidence in the universe suggests the existence of a Designer.

In the 1997 movie Contact, based on the 1985 book by Carl Sagan, Ellie (played by Jodie Foster) monitors radio waves and signals from outer space, listening for an ordered, encrypted sequence among the static. She and her scientist colleagues eventually decipher a signal that is, as they describe it, “not local.” As a result, they surmise that a complex, ordered pattern “can only come from an intelligent source.”[ii]

Let me share another analogy. Suppose you were to visit the Louvre museum in Paris and found yourself gazing at one of the world’s most popular paintings—the Mona Lisa. Would you conclude that this was just an accident from an explosion in a paint store? You are more likely to assume that the remarkable work was done by an accomplished painter (designer).

The argument from design was popularized by an Anglican theologian, William Paley, who published Natural Theology in 1802. Paley wrote, “In crossing a heath, supposed I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever.” Paley continued, “But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, I should hardly think of the answer I had given before.”[iii]

Paley was making the point that you don’t have to be an expert in watches or even stones to understand that someone designed the watch. You may not know who exactly created the watch, but you know someone did.[iv]

Some Darwinian naturalistic atheists will criticize this argument by showing its limitations in describing the nature of the “Intelligent Designer.” These same atheists often fail to admit the faith that is involved in some of the mysteries of evolution, too. Just as there some things that we do not understand about intelligent design, naturalistic scientists do not fully understand evolution. Once again, intelligent design does not attempt to describe all of the moral attributes of God (love, justice, mercy, etc.). It simply claims that it is more likely that the probability of fine-tuning points towards intelligence rather than accident, happenstance.

Astronomer Hugh Ross identifies hundreds of examples that suggest that the universe was precisely created and “tweaked” to support human life on earth. For example, the size of our galaxy is perfect. If the Milky Way were larger, infusions of gas and stars would disturb the sun’s orbit and cause too many galactic eruptions. If it were smaller, there would be an insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation.[v] Similarly, the oxygen and nitrogen quantity is just right for life. If there were more oxygen, plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily. If there was less oxygen, then advanced animals would have too little to breathe. Given these and hundreds of other examples of precise “fine-tuning” in the universe, it is most probable, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an intelligent designer was involved in the creation of the universe.

Other aspects of the universe—like the structure and order of a person’s DNA—also support the theory of intelligent design. Dr. Francis Collins is one of the leading DNA scientists in the world and head of the Human Genome Project. In his book, The Language of God, he also reveals that he is a man of unshakable faith in God and Scripture.[vi]

Collins recalls an announcement about the Human Genome Project in the year 2000 that appeared in virtually every major newspaper. He stood with then-president Bill Clinton and was joined by then-British prime minister Tony Blair by satellite. In the president’s address, Clinton said, “Without a doubt, this is the most important, most wondrous map ever produced by humankind.” Reflecting on Clinton’s speech, Collins noted, “But the part of his speech that most attracted public attention jumped from the scientific perspective to the spiritual.” Clinton had said, “Today, we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.”[vii]

Collins found Clinton’s observation compelling. “Was I, a rigorously trained scientist,” he asked, “taken aback at such a blatantly religious reference by the leader of the free world at a moment like this? No, not at all.”[viii] Francis Collins is one of many scientists who do not see a problem in believing that science points to God.

You do not have to be an expert in science or philosophy to see that the evidence of the design in the universe implies beyond a reasonable doubt, and intelligent designer. For many years Antony Flew was known as one of the world’s leading atheists. But Flew abandoned his atheism and accepted the existence of God because of the argument from design. Flew explained his new beliefs in an interview for Philosophia Christi with Gary Habermas: “[I] had to go where the evidence leads.”

When we establish a personal relationship with God by trusting Christ, we do not receive all of the answers about God’s nature immediately. Nevertheless, we can go wherever the evidence leads. Sometimes I wonder why atheists such as Richard Dawkins admit that aliens might have been involved in the creation of our world but get angry when someone suggests that the world’s designer is God. Perhaps it’s because if God exists, then there are moral implications for the way we live our lives and treat one another.

[i] Expelled: The Movie, Premise Media Corporation, 2008.

[ii] Contact, Warner Brothers USA 1997, illustration used by Alex McFarland, The 10 Most Common Objections to Christianity, (Ventura: Regal Books, 2007), 44.

[iii]William Paley, The Works of William Paley (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1938), Vol. 4,1. Quoted by Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great about Christianity (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2007), 139.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] www.reasons.org, hosted by Dr. Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe

[vi] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006)

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

What Darwin Got Wrong

Sean McDowell — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:30:07 -0700

I started reading What Darwin Got Wrong (2010) assuming it was written by two creationists or proponents of intelligent design. To my pleasant surprise, I could not have been more wrong myself! The authors, Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, explicitly describe themselves as “outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists” (xiii).

The authors make it clear from the outset that they are not trying to undermine naturalism or even give a boost to creationism or ID. In fact, they probably fear that people like myself will pick up a copy and use it as a critique of naturalism. The main thesis of their book is that “natural selection is irredeemably flawed” (p. 1). They are careful to distinguish between common descent and natural selection, clarifying that they have no problem with the former. But they do consider the neo-Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutation as “radically untenable” (p. 44). Natural selection may play a minor role in the development of life, they say, but not possibly the major role assigned to it by evolution supporters. Why?

They note that evolution is believed to have driven the development of life, generating near optimal adaptations for living organisms in different environments. And yet how could a completely blind process do this? (Side note: it’s interesting they argue that things in nature have near optimality since one of the most common objections against ID is the existence of supposed design flaws.) For instance, they refer to leaves that have near perfect shape, honeybees that have developed a nearly optimal foraging strategy, and optimally developed wing strokes in insects (pp. 83-90). Did nature really try all sorts of sub-optimal setups before arriving at these forms of optimality?

They conclude that a blind process that “chooses” optimal features is utterly implausible: “The space of possible solutions to be explored seems too gigantic to have been explored by blind trial and error. The inference appears to be that a highly constrained search must have taken place. Accordingly, the role of natural selection may have been mostly just fine-tuning. Or less” (p. 86). There is simply not enough time in the history of life on earth for the blind mechanism of natural selection to try out innumerable alternative behavioral solutions at each step of the way. A blind process could not result in such optimality.

So, what constrains the search? Their response might surprise you: “It cannot be just good luck when a kind of creature finds itself in a kind of environment in which its kind of phenotype is fit to survive and flourish. Divine solicitude might explain it; everybody knows that God tempers the wind to the shorn lambs. But we are committed to a naturalistic biology, so God is out. What, then, are the naturalistic options?” (142)

This admission confirms what Phillip Johnson has been saying for years: the debate about origins is not really about the science—it’s about philosophy (See Darwin on Trial and more recently Against All Odds: What’s Right and Wrong About the New Atheism). Both sides are looking at the same evidence and yet come to radically different conclusions, based upon the metaphysical assumptions they bring to the table. The reason Darwinism has been the dominant science for the past century (or so) is not because of the evidence, but because of the influence of naturalism. Evolution is the best naturalistic theory of origins around. But the picture looks entirely different without the commitment to naturalism.

Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini take the matter to a whole new level. They admit Darwinism is bankrupt. They admit that they have no mechanism in its place. And yet they still believe that an understanding of the mechanism (which may be centuries away) will be a “deterministic, causal and lawful process through and through” (163). How do they know this? It sounds like a “naturalism of the gaps” to me.

The reason Darwinism has been so widely clung to is because, as Richard Dawkins has said, it allowed atheists to be intellectually fulfilled. If the authors of What Darwin Got Wrong are right, then what does this mean for atheism? There is no natural explanation for the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life, irreducibly complex features, the Cambrian Explosion, consciousness, and many other features of reality. Should we hold out for a naturalistic explanation for these features, too? What will the bankruptcy of Darwinism mean for atheism? Will other atheists follow their lead? I’d love to know what some of you think.

By the way, I commend the authors for their willingness to challenge the sacred cow of Darwinism. In the preface they rightly point out: “Allegiance to Darwinism has become a litmus for deciding who does, and who does not, hold a ‘properly scientific’ worldview” (xiii). This is what ID proponents have been saying for years. I hope others will take their lead and challenge the status quo as well. Isn’t this what scientists are supposed to do? Ironically, that’s exactly what Darwin did. Unfortunately, it seems, he was wrong.

Thomas Nagel Likes Stephen Meyer's Book

Brett Kunkle — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 10:48:47 -0800

Nice. Prominent philosopher Thomas Nagel--no friend to Christianity--names Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design as one of his books of the year:

Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperCollins) is a detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. The controversy over Intelligent Design has so far focused mainly on whether the evolution of life since its beginnings can be explained entirely by natural selection and other non-purposive causes. Meyer takes up the prior question of how the immensely complex and exquisitely functional chemical structure of DNA, which cannot be explained by natural selection because it makes natural selection possible, could have originated without an intentional cause. He examines the history and present state of research on non-purposive chemical explanations of the origin of life, and argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause. Meyer is a Christian, but atheists, and theists who believe God never intervenes in the natural world, will be instructed by his careful presentation of this fiendishly difficult problem.

Fair-minded and reputable observers like Nagel demonstrate that it is unconscionable for critics to simply dismiss ID. Meyer's argument is powerful. The book is an Amazon best seller. Go buy it. Now.

The Greatest Show on Earth (Richard Dawkins)

Sean McDowell — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:01:03 -0700

I love a good challenge. I would much rather read a difficult book that makes me think deeply about my convictions than one that provokes little thought. This is why I eagerly anticipated the release of The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins.

With The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden, and many more, Dawkins has established himself as one of the foremost contemporary defenders of Darwinian evolution. As soon as a copy of his book arrived at my doorstep, I enthusiastically opened the Amazon.com box and jumped right into the book, hoping to be challenged to take another hard look at the evidence for evolution.

With this background information in mind, it’s difficult to express how disappointed I was at the demeaning rhetoric and lack of substance that characterizes The Greatest Show on Earth.

First off, Dawkins utterly refuses to engage with any serious evolution skeptics. He ignores the work of Jonathan Wells (Ph.D. from UC Berkeley), Stephen Meyer (Ph.D. from Cambridge), and William Dembski (double Ph.D. in math and philosophy). They have raised substantive questions for the mechanism of Darwinian evolution. Rather than responding to their critiques, Dawkins sets up countless straw man arguments and focuses solely on young-earth creationists (and not even the leaders among them!).

Now, either Dawkins is unaware of their work, or he chooses to ignore it. The charitable response would be to assume he’s simply unaware of the revolution in Christian philosophy, and the intelligent design movement. But this is hard to believe. Dawkins has refused to debate William Lane Craig, Stephen Meyer and many other leading Protestant thinkers. Dawkins is content to pick on arguments from decades ago rather than dealing with the current state of the debate. He is banking that most of his readers will not catch on. Sadly, he’s probably right.

This is especially ironic since he castigates evolution skeptics for not fully understanding evolutionary theory: “It would be so nice if those who oppose evolution would take a tiny bit of trouble to learn the merest rudiments of what it is that they are opposing” (155). It’s a shame Dawkins ignores his own advice.

Dawkins claims the evidence is so strong for evolution that doubters are “ignoramuses” that can be compared to Holocaust-deniers. On page 9, Dawkins says, “No reputable scientist disputes it.” How can he say this? Since 2001, over 800 Ph.D. scientists have signed the “Dissent from Darwin” list, agreeing with the following statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Why don’t these scientists count? After all, some are from institutions such as MIT, Cambridge, Princeton, UCLA and many more. This example is indicative of what seems to be Dawkins approach in the book: state your views as strongly as you can and completely ignore substantive challenges.

My second criticism of Dawkins book is that he fails to advance any new evidence for evolution. He points to poor design (dysteleology), biogeography, vestigial structures, the fossil record, homology, and more of the same old arguments evolutionists have been proclaiming for years (William Dembski and I respond to most of these in our book Understanding Intelligent Design). I realize this may not be his point, since he is aiming for a lay audience, but it needs to be pointed out, especially in light of how strong he says the evidence for evolution really is. Consider one example of how his case is remarkably one-sided.

Dawkins approvingly cites Jerry Coyne (author of Why Evolution is True), who says that the evidence for biogeography so strongly favors evolution that he has never even seen a creationist attempt to answer it (p. 283). He obviously hasn’t actually read many creationist books. As always, there is another side to the story. The biogeographical evidence does seem to indicate that organisms (finches, mockingbirds, etc.) have adapted to their unique environments. But this provides little substantive proof for Darwin’s grand claim that ALL organisms trace back to a common ancestor through a process of natural selection acting on random mutation. Most evolution skeptics accept the biogeographical evidence; they just question its significance.

The biogeographical evidence indicates that organisms experience a loss of genetic mutation from populations that were isolated through migration or some other natural circumstance. Thus, the biogeographical distribution of species is not the result of new biological information appearing in a particular species (which is what macroevolution requires), but the shuffling or elimination of pre-existing genetic information. While Darwin’s theory can explain minor biological adaptations within existing organisms, it cannot explain how mockingbirds—or any other organism—first appeared.

Much more could be said about The Greatest Show on Earth. Overall, it felt like Dawkins could have cut the book (437 pages) down by about two-thirds without losing any key material. He goes on multiple tangents that, at times, made it hard to follow his reasoning. Overall, I can’t really recommend his book to anyone. Skeptics are better off looking elsewhere for quality material (Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne is a good place to start). Seekers should look elsewhere, so at least they know they are reading someone who is engaging with all the evidence. And evolution-skeptics can find much better challenges to their views.

After reading The God Delusion, I should have known better than to eagerly anticipate the release of Dawkins’ next book. But my enthusiasm got the best of me. That definitely won’t happen again.