A Refutation of God-Directed Evolution, the Bible and the BASF - 3
The Evolution of Information – Even More Creationist Errors
While CVA’s article is replete with gross misunderstandings of evolution, their assertion that “no one has ever observed an information-increasing genetic change of one type of organism to another, let alone the whole process of microbes-to-man evolution over millions of years” does warrant a complete takedown as it ably demonstrates just how poorly-researched CVA’s attack on evolution is, something that is sadly characteristic of every Christadelphian anti-evolution article I have encountered.
That evolutionary processed can generate new information is entirely uncontroversial. A frequently quoted article by Thomas Schneider, a molecular biologist with expertise in information theory looks at information gain in a computer model of evolution that began with zero information and showed the generation of evolution by evolutionary processes. Speaking specifically to creationist objections, Schneider notes that
contrary to probabilistic arguments by [creationist] Spetner, the ev program also clearly demonstrates that biological information, measured in the strict Shannon sense, can rapidly appear in genetic control systems subjected to replication, mutation and selection.[1]
Information therefore can be generated by evolutionary processes such as mutation and selection. It is a creationist cliché that random mutation and natural selection cannot generate evolution but as biologist Stephen Freeland reminds us this is false
The idea that some sequences of DNA cannot be produced by natural processes owing to the information they contain has no empirical support from modern genetics. In fact, quite the reverse. Genetic information is stored in sequences of nucleotides that have been chemically linked together to form a molecule of DNA. Genetics, bioinformatics, biochemistry and molecular biology all agree that natural processes can cause any nucleotide to become the neighbor of any other within a DNA sequence. Mutations that interconvert each of the four nucleotides have been observed within natural populations and within the laboratory, as have insertions, deletions and trans-locations of mini-sequences from one region of the DNA sequence to another.[2]
Long et al note how gene duplication, alteration of existing gene structures, creation of new genes from non-coding DNA, the creation of new gene regulatory systems, non-coding RNAs and transposable elements are all recognised mechanisms to form new gene structures.[3] Arguably the most extreme example of the creation of new genetic mutation is whole genome duplication, an event which evolutionary biologists believe was one of the driving forces behind vertebrate evolution[4]. The power of this dramatic example of information increase through gene and whole genome duplication has long been recognised. In a 1999 paper, Meyer and Shartl observed that
Duplication of genes and entire genomes are two of the major mechanisms that facilitated the increasing complexity of organisms in the evolution of life. Gene duplications might be responsible for the functional diversification of genes, the creation of gene families and the generally increased genomic, and possibly also phenotypic, complexity. Protostomes, such as Drosophila, and deuterostome ancestors of vertebrates tend to have single copies of genes whereas chordate genomes typically have more genes, often four; the copies belong to the same gene family.[5]
Specific examples of how mutations are of benefit evolutionarily are easy to find:
· A point mutation in the apolipoprotein A gene results in the creation of a mutant version of apolipoprotein A, apoA-IM. This beneficial mutation has been linked with reduced rates of atherosclerosis in those heterozygous for the apoA-IM mutation.[6] The clinical significance of this mutation has been explored in many studies.[7],[8]
· The CCR5 gene codes for a chemokine receptor that, along with the CD4 T cell co-receptor is used by the HIV-1 virus as an entry point. A mutation in the CCR5 gene conveys resistance to HIV infection in people homozygous for the mutation, while HIV-1 infected individuals heterozygous for the mutation have a two to three year delay before they develop AIDS. The particular mutation is a 32 base pair deletion that results in loss of the CCR5 receptor.[9]
· Bacteria have evolved the ability to metabolise nylon breakdown products. This was achieved by a frameshift mutation which created a unique enzyme that gave the bacteria the opportunity to access a never-before utilised food source.[10]
· In 2008, the evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski published a landmark paper on the evolution by a colony of E. coli bacteria of the ability to metabolise citrate under oxic conditions, something that E. coli is not normally able to do. Over the previous twenty years, Lenski had cultured 12 colonies of E. coli, taking samples every 500 generations to provide a “fossil record”. After 31,500 generations, one colony evolved the ability to metabolise citrate in an oxic environment. The two hypotheses to explain this were (1) an extremely rare mutation or (2) a mutation that was contingent on an earlier mutation to evolve the ability to metabolise citrate. Lenski’s analysis favoured the latter, “Our results instead support the hypothesis of historical contingency, in which a genetic background arose that had an increased potential to evolve the Cit_ phenotype.”[11]
· Evolution of vertebral steroid receptors and the endocrine systems associated with them involved duplication of an ancestral steroid receptor gene, and mutation of the duplicate.[12],[13]
· Evidence of chromosomal translocation and segmental duplication in Cryptococcus neoformans.[14]
· Genome duplication in yeast as a source of evolutionary novelty.[15]
· Proviral elements from ancient retroviral infections have served as the source of genetic novelty. Placental morphogenesis would not be possible without the cooption of an ancient retroviral envelope protein to perform an entirely different task.[16]
· Horizontal gene transfer in bacteria is responsible for more than just the transfer of antibiotic resistance. One example involves the Salmonella PhoP-PhoQ system which senses environmental magnesium ions, allowing the bacterium to tell whether it is inside a host cell. If this is the case, it activates a molecular pathway that permits it to survive inside the cell. The genes that permit Salmonella to do this are not part of its original genome but were obtained by horizontal gene transfer.[17]
Contrary to CVA’s claim, information-increasing genetic mutations that result in evolutionary novelty are well-documented. While this refutation of CVA’s claim may appear overly lengthy, there is value in showing that on this point CVA’s bald assertion about the lack of evidence for evolutionary increase of information resulting in morphological change is utterly unfounded.
Creationist Misunderstanding of Genesis are Foolishness to God
In the light of this, CVA’s claims frankly come across as unconvincing at best. When they claim of evolutionary biologists that “the basis for their interpretation of history is guided by their world-view and limited to their own educated guesses” it is easy to see that this assertion is laughably inaccurate. As we have seen the interpretation of natural history by evolutionary biologists is driven primarily by the facts and any speculation is well-justified by theory and evidence. The vacuity of CVA’s argument is further emphasised by their conclusion which is contingent on the belief that the argument is fundamentally about duelling worldviews:
In the end it comes down to “beliefs” about the past, and accordingly whose version of history are we going to accept – God’s or man’s?
The fundamental error in CVA’s conclusion is of course easy to see for anyone who has followed the dissection of their claims so far, and that is the mistaken belief that the creation narratives are primarily a scientifically and historically accurate account of origins. Therefore, CVA’s attempt to pit evolution against a literal reading of Genesis fails because they are comparing two different things, a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of the two creation narratives against a careful scientific analysis of the facts relevant to the origin of the diversity of life on this planet. If anything, what evolutionary biology has discovered is far closer to God’s truth in that it is a reading of the natural world which owes its existence to a divine will. The YEC jibe “were you there?” is readily answered with the observation that the rocks and bones were there hundreds of millions of years ago, and an honest examination of them will reveal a true account of origins far more than a biased misinterpretation of the creation narratives.
The remaining paragraphs in CVA’s attempt to dismiss evolution by damning it as “historical science” as compared with “operational science” are similarly vacuous. There is a confused attempt to appeal to the old creationist argument that design implies a designer, along with an equally risible assertion that believers who accept evolution are trying to illegitimately transfer the success of “operational science” to historical sciences such as evolution that CVA implies are unworthy of the praise given to the former
It is possible to describe the function, dimension and purpose of a pot and NEVER appeal to a potter. But it is impossible to describe the origins of a pot without appealing to a potter. This is the error of assumption made when GDE view holders appeal to the success of operational science but then fail to realize the fundamental limitations of non-theism and naturalism when explaining origins or historic science.
It is trivial to fault the first part of this paragraph. There is the fact that CVA is comparing an object known to have been formed by direct human agency with something for which there are well-known and well-accepted natural causes. That alone is enough to dismiss the analogy as ill-formed. Furthermore, by replacing the pot/potter argument with a thunderstorm or the formation of a human infant from a fertilised cell, we can see further problems with the analogy. No reasonable person would argue that it is impossible to describe the origins of a thunderstorm or a human infant without appeal to a deity given that the sciences of atmospheric physics and developmental biology. Therefore, CVA’s analogy is further undermined. Finally, given the well-demonstrated phenomenon of suboptimal design[18],[19],[20] which cannot be explained by necessary compromises dictated by pre-existing constraints but are purely a function of evolutionary contingency that would not apply to an intelligent designer creating organisms from scratch, the pot-potter analogy runs the risk of implying that God is an incompetent or malevolent designer. That particular problem as I will later show is solved by recognising the difference between proximate and ultimate causes.
The other problems are of course the previously examined ones of the young earth creationist attempt both to dismiss the reliability and authority of historical sciences as compared to experimental sciences, and to draw a hard line between historical and experimental sciences. As we have already seen, these young earth creationist attacks on historical science are baseless, while their attempt to draw a sharp line between historical and experimental sciences cannot be made. This point is critical because the pot/potter analogy CVA tries to make is contingent on equating describing the function, dimension and purpose of a pot with experimental science and describing the origins of a pot with historical science. Given that a sharp line cannot be drawn between these areas of science, historical science qua science is not inferior to experimental science, and science is fundamentally the study of natural causes of natural phenomena, CVA’s entire argument collapses.
CVA continues with a rhetorical flourish based on the mistaken belief that the creation narratives in Genesis are historically and scientifically accurate and as such the best source of knowledge about origins
The wisdom of expert [sic] we are relying on is good only to the extent that their worldview is based on the real truth – the real events of history and the true explanation for life upon this earth as we know it. This is why the Bible is the best source of knowledge about what about happened historically, and why the Foundation Clause of our BASF is correct.
As we have already shown that the creation narratives are not historically and scientifically accurate accounts of origins, this claim can be readily dismissed. If we wanted to further critique it, we could note that Genesis is fundamentally a theology of creation rather than a science of creation[21], meaning CVA is making a profound category error by trying to claim it is a more reliable account of origins than the sciences of cosmology and evolutionary biology. Finally, CVA’s claim is not a consistent one as if they really believed the Bible was the best source about what happened historically, they would believe that the earth was flat and covered by a solid firmament holding cosmic waters above.
In CVA’s final paragraph in this section, they inevitably lapse into fideism with the frankly embarrassing boast that the Bible trumps ‘historical science’ experts
The Bible is God’s eyewitness account of what He actually did, and how he created the heavens and the earth and all life therein. It is an infallible source of truth and expertise. The Bible trumps all other “historic science” experts and gives us the big picture about how God created. Even when it comes to more specific details of creation, if our worldview is based upon the rock-solid foundation of the Bible, then we will have “more understanding than all of our teachers” (Psalm 119:99).
There is frankly little more to be
said here. Genesis is not an ‘eyewitness account’ of creation if only because
literal readings of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 flatly contradict each other. Which
version of creation is authoritative? The creation accounts are infallible in
the theological points they are teaching, but with respect to a scientifically
accurate account of origins, not only are they silent on this point, as the
references to a solid firmament in Genesis 1 shows, the creation accounts
accommodate prescientific views of the nature of the world, so do not trump
“historical science” experts because the creation narratives are not speaking
to scientific questions of origins. Finally, basing one’s views on the
specifics of how life on earth appeared on a literal reading of the Bible will
not grant one “more understanding than all of our teachers”. What part of
Genesis 1-2 explains the biogeographical distribution of animals in south east
Asia and Australia? Where in the creation narratives do we find an explanation
for the presence of junk DNA in the human genome? Fideistic claims such as
those made by CVA do our community a huge disservice by making it look like a
collection of wilfully ignorant fundamentalists.
Proximal and Ultimate Causes – How Creationists Mistake God’s Role in Creation
CVA continues by asserting that the second of the two “important characteristics underpinning modern evolutionary science” is
[t]hat the gatekeepers of today’s scientific academies will only allow non-theistic and naturalistic assumptions to be tabled as possible explanation of origins. That is, the data they consider may only be understood with the presuppositions of the evolutionary paradigm itself.
There is a grain of truth in CVA’s claim which will be examined later, but one is immediately prompted to ask CVA whether they would attack today’s scientific academies for only permitting non-theistic and naturalistic assumptions to be tabled as possible explanations for how clouds form and the formation of the foetus in utero, and understanding those results with the presuppositions of atmospheric physics and developmental biology. If one is going to attack science for alleged gatekeeping, it needs to be done consistently, rather than criticise scientific methodology only when its conclusions directly contradict anthropological presuppositions demanded by fundamentalist dogma. Those examples from meteorology and embryology were not selected randomly, but chosen because the Bible specifically declares that God is directly involved in both processes as a survey of the Bible makes clear
- 1 Sam 12:17-18 “Is it not the wheat harvest today? I will call to the Lord, that He may send thunder and rain. Then you will know and see that your wickedness is great which you have done in the sight of the Lord by asking for yourselves a king.” So Samuel called to the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel.
- Job 28:26 When He set a limit for the rain and a course for the thunderbolt
- Zech 10:1 The Lord who makes the storm clouds; and He will give them showers of rain, vegetation in the field to each man.
- Jer 10:13 When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain, and brings out the wind from His storehouses.
- Jer 51:16 When He utters His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and He causes the clouds to ascend from the end of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain And brings forth the wind from His storehouses.
- Jer 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.
- Psa 139:13 For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.
- Job 10:10-11 Did You not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese; clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews?
- Job 31:15 Did not He who made me in the womb make him, and the same one fashion us in the womb?
- Isa 44:2 Thus says the Lord who made you and formed you from the womb, who will help you
- Isa 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone.”
It is completely inconsistent of YECs to attack mainstream science for refusing to allow overtly theistic explanations for human origins while happily accepting naturalistic explanations for embryogenesis and storm formation as provided by the sciences of developmental biology and atmospheric physics, respectively. This point is further highlighted by Isaiah 44:24 which in the same verse declares YHWH to be the creator of the universe and the one who created humans in utero. One never hears fundamentalists appealing to this verse to demand equal time for theistic and supernatural explanations for how the foetus forms from a fertilised egg to birth.
The problem here is that CVA has made the classic fundamentalist error of confusing proximate and ultimate causes. Every Christian believes that God is the creator of the universe, but that does not mean God is directly moving every atom moment by moment to bring about a desired outcome. Rather, God can be seen as the ultimate cause, with what we call the laws of science being the proximate cause. There is no excuse for being ignorant of Divine agency as examples abound in the Bible. For example, in Ex 7:4-5, God states:
When Pharaoh does not listen to you, then I will lay My hand on Egypt and bring out My hosts, My people the sons of Israel, from the land of Egypt by great judgments. The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.
In fact, God explicitly states in verses 17-18 that he would strike the water with the staff in his hand in order to turn it to blood:
Thus says the LORD, “By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in my hand, and it will be turned to blood. The fish that are in the Nile will die, and the Nile will become foul, and the Egyptians will find difficulty in drinking water from the Nile.”
God however did not literally strike the Nile, but employed secondary methods (Aaron) to achieve his aims. Likewise, God did not literally stretch out his hand to smite Egypt, but rather employed secondary methods - the plagues - to achieve these ends. The plagues and Aaron were the proximate causes, while God remained the ultimate cause in both cases.
This brings to mind Aquinas’ observation on causation in Summa Theologica where he asserts
Some have understood God to work in such a way that no created power has any effect on things, but that God alone is the immediate cause of everything wrought… But this is impossible. First, because the order of cause and effect would be taken away from created things, and this would imply lack of power in the Creator.[22]
Palaeontologist and Christian Robert J Asher follows up on this mistake made by creationists (and anti-theistic scientists) that evolution per se rules out a divine hand behind it. He writes
They conflate agency and cause by thinking that our understanding of evolution’s cause excludes an agency behind it. In fact, as a way of explaining things, agency and cause do not necessarily exclude or compete with one another. To argue that they do in the case of evolution would be just as ridiculous as saying that steam-powered rotation of a turbine cannot be the mechanism behind riverboat thrust, because I know Savery and Watt did it, or to say that since a steam-powered turbine is involved, these Savery and Watt people are only a myth. It is possible to be completely oblivious to the agency (or cause) behind the steam engine, yet know quite well how it works (or who developed it).[23]
It is surprising that evolution denialists fail to appreciate how God can work in the natural world through secondary causes, given that they freely accept that atmospheric physics and developmental biology allow us to explain respectively how storms form and babies develop from a single fertilised egg to an infant. This alone renders CVA’s argument void. As science is the search for natural causes for natural phenomena, that is, proximate causes, CVA is conflating ultimate and proximate causes when complaining that the alleged gatekeepers of science are excluding non-theistic and naturalistic explanations.
Creationists like CVA imply that the refusal to allow supernatural causes for natural phenomena represents a conspiracy by unbelieving scientists against religion, but such paranoid thinking not only grossly slanders the vast majority of scientists, but ignores the fundamental fact that once we allow supernatural causes into science, we effectively cease performing science. In a review of biochemist Michael Behe’s 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, Steve Dutch, Emeritus professor of Natural and Applied Sciences, at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay notes how science would grind to a halt once the supernatural was routinely invoked to explain natural phenomena
Behe takes on the rule that science ought not invoke supernatural phenomena, notes that it fails to exclude a lot of now discredited natural theories, and concludes it is “more like a professional aphorism - like ‘the customer is always right.’” In fact, there's one overwhelming reason why science refuses to admit supernatural explanations, and Behe nails it right on:
The anxiety is that if the supernatural were allowed as an explanation, then there would be no stopping it. It would be invoked frequently to explain many things that in reality have natural explanations. (p. 241)
Right on. But he goes on to add
Is this a reasonable fear? No one can predict the behavior of human beings, but it seems to me that the fear of the supernatural popping up everywhere in science is vastly overblown. If my graduate student came into my office and said that the angel of death killed her bacterial culture, I would be disinclined to believe her (p. 241).
Trust us, Behe, says. Yes, it is a reasonable fear, and yes, we can predict the behavior of human beings. And one thing we can absolutely predict is that if something can be abused, it will be. The shameful record of credulity, intellectual dishonesty, and deceit on the part of believers anxious to demonstrate miracles shows plainly that advocates of miraculous explanations in science cannot be trusted. Offended? You should be. Start cleaning up your denomination. Then, when it has such a record for unflinching honesty that it's sought out whenever especially trustworthy people are needed, then come back and criticize science. Better yet, show us you can be trusted by examining your doctrines critically and explicitly abandoning those that fail to stand up to scrutiny, then publicly announcing that you were wrong.[24] (Emphasis in the original)
Dutch’s fears are not groundless given that creationist extremists like Answers in Genesis in their Statement of Faith openly declare that observed facts can be dismissed if they conflict with a literal reading of the creation narratives. CVA’s implied demand that science permit supernatural explanations for natural events would destroy science as we know it, not because such supernatural causes are impossible a priori, but because by invoking them at the first sign of a problem such as the emergence of life from non-life, they would be a science-stopper by immediately invoking “God did it” and immediately shutting down further research. Examples are trivial to give, such as the fact successful discovery of oil depends on mainstream geology[25], and, with respect to my profession, considerable medical advances have been made in the light of evolution[26],[27],[28],[29]. Many scientific advances would never been made if every scientific question was bluntly answered “God did it” and the subject immediately closed. At a pragmatic level, the fact that science has been so successful in explaining natural phenomena while supernatural explanations have eventually been shown to be wanting shows that an appeal to supernatural causes should be resisted as they have been repeatedly shown to be unproductive.
On Methodological and Philosophical Naturalism – Correcting some Errors
Earlier, I said there was a grain of truth in CVA’s claim that only naturalistic and non-theistic explanations for origins are permitted. In response to creationist accusations that mainstream science automatically rules out the supernatural, many scientists and philosophers of science have referred to methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism when arguing against special creationism, where the former can be summarised as believing that natural causes have natural explanations, while the latter refers to the belief that the natural world is all that exists. As philosopher Barbara Forrest notes
I shall use “methodological naturalism” and “philosophical naturalism” to mean what Paul Kurtz defines them to mean in the first and second senses, respectively:
First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible….
There is a second meaning of naturalism, which is as a generalized description of the universe. According to the naturalists, nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry. This is a non-reductive naturalism, for although nature is physical-chemical at root, we need to deal with natural processes on various levels of observation and complexity: electrons and molecules, cells and organisms, flowers and trees, psychological cognition and perception, social institutions, and culture….
Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. Although there is variation in the views of modern naturalists, Kurtz’s definition captures these two most important aspects of modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and (2) the inadmissibility of the supernatural or transcendent into its metaphysical scheme.[30] (Emphasis in original)
Given that supernatural explanations of natural phenomena over time have consistently yielded to scientific explanations[31], it is not unreasonable for scientists to assume that any unexplained natural phenomena will also end up having natural explanations. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, assuming that natural phenomena will always have natural causes is an entirely reasonable scientific position to maintain. Creationists have still argued that mainstream science is simply “rigging the game” to automatically exclude supernatural explanations of natural phenomena, and recently some scientists and philosophers of science have argued that
ruling the supernatural out of science by fiat is not only philosophically untenable, it actually provides grist to the mill of anti-evolutionism. The philosophical flaws in this conception of methodological naturalism have been gratefully exploited by advocates of intelligent design creationism to bolster their false accusations of naturalistic bias and dogmatism on the part of modern science.[32]
In an earlier paper, the authors have looked at five reasons offered in defence of methodological naturalism[33]; (1) science by definition excludes the supernatural, (2) allowing the supernatural would result in epistemic anarchy as anything would be permitted, (3) it would be a ‘science stopper’, (4) it is required procedurally as the supernatural is unknowable by scientific means, and (5) supernatural phenomena are intrinsically untestable. While finding sone merit in these concerns, the authors ultimately conclude that these concerns do not justify the traditional formulation of methodological naturalism, and instead argue for a revised version of methodological naturalism “as a provisory and empirically grounded commitment of scientists to naturalistic causes and explanations, which is in principle revocable by overwhelming and unmistakable empirical evidence”[34] Given that supernatural explanations have consistently failed in the past, it is entirely reasonable to preferentially look for natural causes of natural phenomena while not by definition excluding supernatural phenomena. However, given that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, the authors are correct to insist that methodological naturalism be set aside only by “overwhelming and unmistakable empirical evidence”.
Another scholar arguing that science can test supernatural worldviews is Yonathan Fishman who like Boudry, Blancke, and Braeckman whom I cited earlier asserts that contrary to the philosophers and scientists who argue that supernatural phenomena are by definition not testable
these assumptions are questionable and that indeed science can test supernatural claims. While scientific evidence may ultimately support a naturalistic worldview, science does not presuppose Naturalism as an a priori commitment, and supernatural claims are amenable to scientific evaluation.[35]
Fishman outlines three factors involved in testing supernatural hypotheses; (1) hypotheses evaluated on prior probabilities, (2) hypotheses evaluated based on confirming or disconfirming evidence and (3) hypotheses evaluated based on the availability of plausible alternative explanations. This three-factor approach, Fishman argues supernatural claims to be tested. Therefore, he argues that there is no need to draw a line between the supernatural and natural, but rather all claims, both natural and supernatural can be tested
In agreement with other authors (e.g., Laudan, 1983; Monton, 2006; Stenger, 2006a), the present author maintains that demarcating ‘science’ from ‘pseudoscience’ or ‘natural’ from ‘supernatural’ is not only problematic but unnecessary. The crucial question is not, Is it science? or Is it supernatural?, but rather, Is there any good reason to believe that claim X is true? Whether the entities or phenomena posited by claim X are defined as ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’ is irrelevant to the scientific status of the claim. If the fundamental aim of science is the pursuit of truth – to uncover, to the extent that humans are capable, the nature of reality – then science should go wherever the evidence leads. If the evidence were to strongly suggest the existence of supernatural phenomena, then so be it.[36]
While special creationists often allege a conspiracy to suppress creationist views, it is telling that they have conspicuously avoided publishing their claims in mainstream scientific journals, instead preferring instead either to bypass peer review and publish in books, or to print their work in creationist “scientific journals”.[37] That creationists have managed to publish in the mainstream scientific literature[38] shows that nothing is stopping creationists from publishing. Significantly, creationist claims that have been assessed by mainstream sciences have always been shown to be wanting. Fishman notes that
For instance, a major claim of the ID movement is that certain biochemical pathways such as the blood-clotting cascade and cellular structures such as the bacterial flagellum are “irreducibly complex” and hence could not, in principle, have evolved by stepwise Darwinian evolution (Behe, 1996). This is a testable claim, which has been tested and empirically falsified, along with many other ID claims (Perakh, 2003; Stenger, 2003; Shanks, 2004; Young & Edis, 2004; Monton, 2006; Pallen & Matzke, 2006; Stenger 2006a). As philosopher Larry Laudan has argued, “Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact…[Creationist] claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests."[39]
To this one can add mathematician and intelligent design adherent William Dembski’s claim to be able to detect design which has failed to persuade mainstream scientists. Mathematician Jason Rosenhouse who has a specific interest in debunking creationist abuse of mathematics notes
Dembski’s method tells us first to carry out a calculation to establish complexity and only then to consider the question of specification. It is not clear that this is workable, since the manner in which we specify the event will influence the probability space we use to carry out the calculation.
In light of these and many other issues, we have reason to be skeptical of Dembski’s framework as a general method for detecting design. At a minimum, when Dembski attempts to apply his method to biology, we will need to pay close attention to how he tries to circumvent the difficult questions we have raised.
We shall see that when the object in question is a biological adaptation, Dembski has no sound way of establishing either complexity or specification in the precise technical sense that his theory requires.[40]
[1] Schneider TD. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jul 15;28(14):2794-9. doi: 10.1093/nar/28.14.2794. PMID: 10908337; PMCID: PMC102656.
[2] Stephen Freeland “The Evolutionary Origins of Genetic Information” BioLogos July 29 2013 https://biologos.org/articles/the-evolutionary-origins-of-genetic-information Accessed 14th December 2023
[3] Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution: little did we know. Annu Rev Genet. 2013;47:307-33. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-111212-133301. Epub 2013 Sep 13. PMID: 24050177; PMCID: PMC4281893.
[4] Holland, L.Z., Ocampo Daza, D. A new look at an old question: when did the second whole genome duplication occur in vertebrate evolution?. Genome Biol 19, 209 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-018-1592-0
[5] Meyer A, Schartl M "Gene and genome duplications in vertebrates: the one-to-four (-to-eight in fish) rule and the evolution of novel gene functions" Curr Opin Cell Biol 1999, 11:699-704
[6] Franceschini G, Sirtori CR, Capurso A, et al. A-I Milano apoprotein: decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family. J Clin Invest. 1980;66:892–900.
[7] Sirtori C.R. et al “Cardiovascular Status of Carriers of the Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Mutant” Circulation. 2001;103:1949-1954.
[8] Shah P.K. et al “High-Dose Recombinant Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Mobilizes Tissue Cholesterol and Rapidly Reduces Plaque Lipid and Macrophage Content in Apolipoprotein E–Deficient Mice” Circulation. 2001;103:3047-3050
[9] Stevens J.C. et al “Dating the origin of the CCR5-Delta32 AIDS-resistance allele by the coalescence of haplotypes.” Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Jun;62(6):1507-15.
[10] Ohno S “Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisting, internally repetitious coding sequence” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (1984) 81:2421-2425
[11] Blount Z.D., Borland C.Z., Lenski R.E. "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008 105:7899-7906
[12] Thornton J.W. "Evolution of vertebrate steroid receptors from an ancestral estrogen receptor by ligand exploitation and serial genome expansions" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (2001) 98:5671-5676
[13] Bridgham J.T., Carroll S.M., Thornton J.W. “Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation” Science (2006) 312:97-101
[14] Fraser J.A. et al "Chromosomal Translocation and Segmental Duplication in Cryptococcus neoformans" Eukaryotic Cell (2005) 4:401-406
[15] Kellis M, Birren B.W, Lander E.S. “Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae” Nature (2004) 428:617-624
[16] Mi S et al "Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein involved in human placental morphogenesis" Nature (2000) 403:785-789
[17] McAdams H.H. Srinivasan B, Arkin A.P "The Evolution of Genetic Regulatory Systems in Bacteria" Nat Rev Genet (2004) 5:169-178
[18] Held, Jr, Lewis I.. Quirks of Human Anatomy: An Evo-Devo Look at the Human Body. United States: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[19] Lents, Nathan H.. Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes. United States: HarperCollins, 2018.
[20] Avise, John C.. Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2010.
[21] Hyers, Conrad. "Genesis knows nothing of scientific creationism." Creation/Evolution 4.20 (1983): 1-21.
[22] Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 105, Article 5.
[23] Robert J Asher Evolution and Belief: Confessions of a Religious Paleontologist (2012: Cambridge University Press), 7
[24] Steve Dutch “Michael Behe and Darwin’s Black Box” https://stevedutch.net/pseudosc/behe.htm Accessed 20th November 2023
[25] Jonathan Baker “Creation Science Rebuttals: The Flood Geology of Oil” Answers Magazine Vol 2 Issue 1 (Jan-Mar 2007) https://www.oldearth.org/rebuttal/aig/Answers/2007/answers_v2_n1_origin_of_oil.htm Accessed 15th December 2023
[26] Varki A. “Nothing in medicine makes sense, except in the light of evolution.” J Mol Med (Berl). 2012 May;90(5):481-94. doi: 10.1007/s00109-012-0900-5. Epub 2012 Apr 27. PMID: 22538272.
[27] Stearns, Stephen C. “Evolutionary medicine: its scope, interest and potential.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279.1746 (2012): 4305-4321.
[28] Libertini, Giacinto, et al. “Evolutionary Medicine.” Evolutionary Gerontology and Geriatrics: Why and How We Age. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. 69-120.
[29] Casás-Selves, Matias, and James DeGregori. “How cancer shapes evolution and how evolution shapes cancer.” Evolution: Education and outreach 4 (2011): 624-634.
[30] Forrest, B. (2000). Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection. Philo, 3, 7–29.
[31] Examples come readily to mind such as the belief the geological strata were deposited by a single global flood and the earth was six thousand years old, both of which were abandoned in the mid-19th century by geologists as these claims were not supported by the evidence. It is worth noting that this was before Darwin published his book so the young earth creationist assertion that these were “compromises” made to accommodate evolution cannot be defended.
[32] Boudry, M., Blancke, S. & Braeckman, J. Grist to the Mill of Anti-evolutionism: The Failed Strategy of Ruling the Supernatural Out of Science by Philosophical Fiat. Sci & Educ 21, 1151–1165 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9446-8
[33] Boudry, Maarten, Stefaan Blancke, and Johan Braeckman. “How not to attack intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism.” Foundations of Science 15 (2010): 227-244.
[34] ibid
[35] Fishman, Y.I. Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?. Sci & Educ 18, 813–837 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9108-4
[36] ibid
[37] Even then, as biologist and Christian Joel Duff notes, creation science is not flourishing “Returning to creationist scholarly publications, only 60 research articles in 2011 don’t tell the whole story. Of those a good portion involve analysis of theological concerns rather than scientific. Many of the scientific articles are not based on new data collected but are more like commentaries and speculations about how flood geology could explain secular data. Very few actually propose hypotheses for which new data is collected and analyses to test those hypotheses. I’m not saying that there aren’t intelligent people who are willing to devote great time and attention to writing for the creationist cause. Reiterating what I’ve said before, I’m pointing out here and my last two posts is that a 50 year old hypothesis if it were great at explaining the features of the earth’s land-forms it should be attracting a much greater professional following yet the average age of the intellectual drivers of the creationists movement is going up year after year.” Joel Duff “The State of Creation Science as Measured by Scholarly Publishing” Naturalis Historia Nov 3 2011 https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2012/11/03/the-state-of-creation-science-as-measured-by-scholarly-publishing/ Accessed 18th December 2023
[38] Behe MJ, Snoke DW. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci. 2004 Oct;13(10):2651-64. doi: 10.1110/ps.04802904. Epub 2004 Aug 31. PMID: 15340163; PMCID: PMC2286568.
[39] Fishman, op cit.
[40] Rosenhouse, Jason. The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2022, 137
