Tag: creation vs. evolution

Does Old-Earth Creationism Make God Deceptive?

Untitled00002

By Fazale Rana – July 17, 2019

“Are [vestigial structures] unequivocal evidence of evolution?

No. Are they reasonable evidence of evolution? Yes.

Ditto gene sequences.

Appearance of evolution is no more a valid deflection [for the overwhelming evidence for evolution] than the appearance of age is a valid dodge of the overwhelming confluence of evidence of antiquity.

Both are sinking ships. I got off before going under with you on this one.”

—Hill R. (a former old-earth creationist who now espouses theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism)

Most people who follow my work at Reasons to Believe know I question the grand claim of the evolutionary paradigm; namely, that evolutionary processes provide the exclusive explanation for the origin, design, and history of life. In light of my skepticism, friends and foes alike often ask me how I deal with (what many people perceive to be) the compelling evidence for the evolutionary history of life, such as vestigial structures and shared genetic features in genomes.

As part of my response, I point out that this type of evidence for evolution can be accommodated by a creation model, with the shared features reflecting common design, not common descent—particularly now that we know that there is a biological rationale for many vestigial structures and shared genetic features. This response prompted my friend Hill R. to level his objection. In effect, Hill says I am committing the “appearance of evolution” fallacy, which he believes is analogous to the “appearance of age” fallacy committed by young-earth creationists (YECs).

Hill is not alone in his criticism. Other people who embrace theistic evolution/evolutionary creation (such as my friends at BioLogos) level a similar charge. According to these critics, both appearance of age and appearance of evolution fallacies make God deceptive.

If biological systems are designed, but God made them appear as if they evolved, then the conclusions we draw when we investigate nature are inherently untrustworthy. This is a problem because, according to Scripture, God reveals himself to us through the record of nature. But if we are misled by nature’s features and, consequently, draw the wrong conclusion, then it makes God deceptive. However, God cannot lie or deceive. It is contrary to his nature.

So, how do I respond to this theological objection to RTB’s creation model?

Before I reply, I want to offer a little more background information to make sure that anyone who is unfamiliar with this concern can better appreciate the seriousness of the charge against our creation model. If you don’t need the background explanation, then feel free to skip ahead to A Response to the Appearance of Evolution Challenge.

Evidence for Evolution: Vestigial Structures

Evolutionary biologists often point to vestigial structures—such as the pelvis and hind limbs of whales and dolphins (cetaceans)—as compelling evidence for biological evolution. Evolutionary biologists view vestigial structures this way because they are also homologous (structurally similar) structures. Vestigial structures are rudimentary body parts that are smaller and simpler than the corresponding features possessed by the other members of a biological group. As a case in point, the whale pelvis and hind limbs are homologous to the pelvis and hind limbs of all other mammals.

blog__inline--does-old-earth-creationism-make-god-deceptive-1

Figure 1: Whale Pelvis. Image credit: Shutterstock

Evolutionary biologists believe that vestigial structures were fully functional at one time but degenerated over the course of many generations because the organisms no longer needed them to survive in an ever-changing environment—for example, when the whale ancestor transitioned from land to water. From an evolutionary standpoint, fully functional versions of these structures existed in the ancestral species. The structures’ form and function may be retained (possibly modified) in some of the evolutionary lineages derived from the ancestral species, but if no longer required, the structures become diminished (and even lost) in other lineages.

Evidence for Evolution: Shared Genetic Features

Evolutionary biologists also consider shared genetic features found in organisms that naturally group together as compelling evidence for common descent. One feature of particular interest is the identical (or nearly identical) DNA sequence patterns found in genomes. According to this line of reasoning, the shared patterns arose as a result of a series of substitution mutations that occurred in the common ancestor’s genome. Presumably, as the varying evolutionary lineages diverged from the nexus point, they carried with them the altered sequences created by the primordial mutations.

Synonymous mutations play a significant role in this particular argument for common descent. Because synonymous mutations don’t alter the amino acid sequence of proteins, their effects are considered to be inconsequential. (In a sense, they are analogous to vestigial anatomical features.) So, when the same (or nearly the same) patterns of synonymous mutations are observed in genomes of organisms that cluster together into the same group, most life scientists interpret them as compelling evidence of the organisms’ common evolutionary history.

A Response to the Evidence for Evolution

As a rejoinder to this evidence, I point out that we continue to uncover evidence that vestigial structures display function (see Vestigial Structures are Functional in the Resources section.) Likewise, evidence is beginning to accumulate that synonymous mutations have functional consequences. (see Shared Genetic Features Reflect Design in the Resources section.) Again, if these features have functional utility, then they can reasonably be interpreted as the Creator’s handiwork.

But, even though these biological features bear function, many critics of the RTB model think that the shared features of these biological systems still bear the hallmarks of an evolutionary history. Therefore, they argue that these features look as if they evolved. And if so, we are guilty of the “appearance of evolution” fallacy.

Appearance of Age and the Appearance of Evolution

In 1857, Philip Gosse, a biologist and preacher from England, sought to reconcile the emerging evidence for Earth’s antiquity with Scripture. Gosse was convinced that the earth was old. He was also convinced that Scripture taught that the earth was young. In an attempt to harmonize these disparate stances, he proposed the appearance of age argument in a book titled Omphalos. In this work, Gosse argued that God created Earth in six days, but made it with the appearance of age.

blog__inline--does-old-earth-creationism-make-god-deceptive-2

Figure 2: Philip Henry Gosse, 1855. Image credit: Wikipedia

This idea persists today, finding its way into responses modern-day YECs make to the scientific evidence for Earth’s and life’s antiquity. For many people (including me), the appearance of age argument is fraught with theological problems, the chief one being that it makes God deceptive. If Earth appears to be old, and it measures to be old, yet it is young, then we can’t trust anything we learn when we study nature. This problem is not merely epistemological; it is theological because nature is one way that God has chosen to make himself known to us. But if our investigation of nature is unreliable, then it means that God is untrustworthy.

In other words, on the surface, both the appearance of age and the appearance of evolution arguments made by YECs and old-earth creationists (OECs), respectively, seem to be equally problematic.

But does the RTB position actually commit the appearance of evolution fallacy? Does it suffer from the same theological problems as the argument first presented by Gosse in Omphalos? Are we being hypocritical when we criticize the appearance of age fallacy, only to commit the appearance of evolution fallacy?

A Response to the Appearance of Evolution Challenge

This charge against the RTB creation model neglects to fully represent the reasons I question the evolutionary paradigm.

First, my skepticism is not theologically motivated but scientifically informed. For example, I point out in an article I recently wrote for Sapientia that a survey of the scientific literature makes it clear that evolutionary theory as currently formulated cannot account for the key transitions in life’s history, including:

  • the origin of life
  • the origin of eukaryotic cells
  • the origin of body plans
  • the origin of human exceptionalism

Additionally, some predictions that flow out of the evolutionary paradigm have failed (such as the widespread prevalence of convergence), further justifying my skepticism. (See Scientific Challenges to the Evolutionary Paradigm in the Resources section.)

In other words, when we interpret shared features as a manifestation of common design (including vestigial structures and shared genetic patterns), it is in the context of scientifically demonstrable limitations of the evolutionary framework to fully account for life’s origin, history, and design. To put it differently, because of the shortcomings of evolutionary theory, we don’t see biological systems as having evolved. Rather, we think they’ve been designed.

Appearance of Design Fallacy

Even biologists who are outspoken atheists readily admit that biological and biochemical systems appear to be designed. Why else would Nobel Laureate Francis Crick offer this word of caution to scientists studying biochemical systems: “Biologists must keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”1 What other reason would evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins offer for defining biology as “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”?2

Biologists can’t escape the use of design language when they describe the architecture and operation of biological systems. In and of itself, this practice highlights the fact that biological systems appear to be designed, not evolved.

To sidestep the inexorable theological implications that arise when biologists use design language, biologist Colin Pittendrigh coined the term teleonomy in 1958 to describe systems that appear to be purposeful and goal-directed, but aren’t. In contrast with teleology—which interprets purposefulness and goal-directedness as emanating from a Mind— teleonomy views design as the outworking of evolutionary processes. In other words, teleonomy allows biologists to utilize design language— when they describe biological systems—without even a tinge of guilt.

In fact, the teleonomic interpretation of biological design resides at the heart of the Darwinian revolution. Charles Darwin claimed that natural selection could account for the design of biological systems. In doing so, he supplanted Mind with mechanism. He replaced teleology with teleonomy.

Prior to Darwin, biology found its grounding in teleology. In fact, Sir Richard Owen—one of England’s premier biologists in the early 1800s—produced a sophisticated theoretical framework to account for shared biological features found in organisms that naturally cluster together (homologous structures). For Owen (and many biologists of his time) homologous structures were physical manifestations of an archetypal design that existed in the Creator’s mind.

Thus, shared biological features—whether anatomical, physiological, biochemical, or genetic—can be properly viewed as evidence for common design, not common descent. In fact, when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, he appropriated Owen’s concept of the archetype but then replaced it with a hypothetical common ancestor.

Interestingly, Owen (and other like-minded biologists) found an explanation for vestigial structures like the pelvis and hind limb bones (found in whales and snakes) in the concept of the archetype. They regarded these structures as necessary to the architectural design of the organism. In short, a model that interprets shared biological characteristics from a design/creation model framework has historical precedence and is based on the obvious design displayed by biological systems.

Given the historical precedence for interpreting the appearance of design in biology as bona fide design and the inescapable use of design language by biologists, it seems to me that RTB’s critics commit the appearance of design fallacy when they (along with other biologists) claim that things in biology look designed, but they actually evolved.

Theories Are Underdetermined by Data

A final point. One of the frustrating aspects of scientific discovery relates to what’s called the underdetermination thesis.3 Namely, two competing theories can explain the same set of data. According to this idea, theories are underdetermined by data. This limitation means that two or more theories—that may be radically different from one another—can equally account for the same data. Or, to put it another way, the methodology of science never leads to one unique theory. Because of this shortcoming, other factors—nonscientific ones—influence the acceptance or rejection of a scientific theory, such as a commitment to mechanistic explanations to explain all of biology.

As a consequence of the underdetermination theory, evolutionary models don’t have the market cornered when it comes to offering an interpretation of biological data. Creation models, such as the RTB model—which relies on the concept of common design—also makes sense of the biological data. And given the inability of current evolutionary theory to explain key transitions in life’s history, maybe a creation model approach is the better alternative.

In other words, when we interpret vestigial structures and shared genetic features from a creation model perspective, we are not committing an appearance of age type of fallacy, nor are we making God deceptive. Instead, we are offering a common sense and scientifically robust interpretation of the elegant designs so prevalent throughout the living realm.

Far from a sinking ship one should abandon, a creation model offers a lifeline to scientific and biblical integrity.

Resources

Vestigial Structures Are Functional

Shared Genetic Features Reflect Design

Scientific Challenges for the Evolutionary Paradigm

Archetype Biology

Endnotes
  1. Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 138.
  2. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence for Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), 4.
  3. Val Dusek, Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 12.

Reprinted with permission by the author

Original article at:
https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design

Dollo’s Law at Home with a Creation Model, Reprised*

dolloslawathome

BY FAZALE RANA – SEPTEMBER 12, 2017

*This article is an expanded and updated version of an article published in 2011 on reasons.org.

Published posthumously, Thomas Wolfe’s 1940 novel, You Can’t Go Home Again—considered by many to be his most significant work—explores how brutally unfair the passage of time can be. In the finale, George Webber (the story’s protagonist) concedes, “You can’t go back home” to family, childhood, familiar places, dreams, and old ways of life.

In other words, there’s an irreversible quality to life. Call it the arrow of time.

Like Wolfe, most evolutionary biologists believe there is an irreversibility to life’s history and the evolutionary process. In fact, this idea is codified in Dollo’s Law, which states that an organism cannot return, even partially, to a previous evolutionary stage occupied by one of its ancestors. Yet, several recent studies have uncovered what appears to be violations of Dollo’s Law. These violations call into question the sufficiency of the evolutionary paradigm to fully account for life’s history. On the other hand, the return to ‘ancestral states’ finds an explanation in an intelligent design/creation model approach to life’s history.

Dollo’s Law

French paleontologist Louis Dollo formulated the law that bears his name in 1893 before the advent of modern-day genetics, basing it on patterns he unearthed from the fossil record. Today, his idea finds undergirding in contemporary understanding of genetics and developmental biology.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains the modern-day conception of Dollo’s Law this way:

“Dollo’s Law is really just a statement about the statistical improbability of following exactly the same evolutionary trajectory twice . . . in either direction. A single mutational step can easily be reversed. But for larger numbers of mutational steps . . . mathematical space of all possible trajectories is so vast that the chance of two trajectories ever arriving at the same point becomes vanishingly small.”1

If a biological trait is lost during the evolutionary process, then the genes and developmental pathways responsible for that feature will eventually degrade, because they are no longer under selective pressure. In 1994, using mathematical modeling, researchers from Indiana University determined that once a biological trait is lost, the corresponding genes can be “reactivated” with reasonable probability over time scales of five hundred thousand to six million years. But once a time span of ten million years has transpired, unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways become permanently lost.2

In 2000, a scientific team from the University of Oregon offered a complementary perspective on the timescale for evolutionary reversals when they calculated how long it takes for a duplicated gene to lose function.3 (Duplicated genes serve as a proxy for dormant genes rendered useless because the trait they encode has been lost.) According to the evolutionary paradigm, once a gene becomes duplicated, it is no longer under the influence of natural selection. That is, it undergoes neutral evolution, and eventually becomes silenced as mutations accrue. As it turns out, the half-life for this process is approximately four million years. To put it another way, sixteen to twenty-four million years after the duplication event, the duplicated gene will have completely lost its function. Presumably, this result applies to dormant, unexpressed genes rendered unnecessary because the trait they specify is lost.

Both scenarios assume neutral evolution and the accumulation of mutations in a clockwise manner. But what if the loss of gene function is advantageous? Collaborative work by researchers from Harvard University and NYU in 2007 demonstrated that loss of gene function can take place on the order of about one million years if natural selection influences gene loss.4 This research team studied the loss of eyes in the cave fish, the Mexican tetra. Because they live in a dark cave environment, eyes serve no benefit for these creatures. The team discovered that eye reduction offers an advantage for these fish, because of the high metabolic cost associated with maintaining eyes. The reduced metabolic cost associated with eye loss accelerates the loss of gene function through the operation of natural selection.

Based on these three studies, it is reasonable to conclude that once a trait has been lost, the time limit for evolutionary reversals is on the order of about 20 million years.

The very nature of evolutionary mechanisms and the constraints of genetic mutations make it extremely improbable that evolutionary processes would allow an organism to revert to an ancestral state or to recover a lost biological trait. You can’t go home again.

Violations of Dollo’s Law

Despite this expectation, over the course of the last several years, researchers have uncovered several instances in which Dollo’s Law has been violated. A brief description of a handful of these occurrences follows:

The re-evolution of mandibular teeth in the frog genus Gastrotheca. This group is the only one that includes living frogs with true teeth on the lower jaw. When examined from an evolutionary framework, mandibular teeth were present in ancient frogs and then lost in the ancestor of all living frogs. It also looks as if teeth have been absent in frogs for 225 million years before they reappeared in Gastrotheca.5

The re-evolution of oviparity in sand boas. When viewed from an evolutionary perspective, it appears as if live-birth (viviparity) evolved from egg-laying (oviparity) behaviors in reptiles several times. For example, estimates indicate that this evolutionary transition has occurred in snakes at least thirty times. As a case in point, there are 41 species of boas in the Old and New Worlds that give live births. Yet, two recently described sand boas, the Arabian sand boas (Eryx jayakari) and the Saharan sand boa (Eryx muelleri) lay eggs. Phylogenetic analysis carried out by researchers from Yale University indicates that the egg-laying in these two species of sand boas re-evolved 60 million years after the transition to viviparity took place.6

The re-evolution of rotating sex combs in Drosophila. Sex combs are modified bristles unique to male fruit flies, used for courtship and mating. Compared to transverse sex combs, rotating sex combs result when several rows of bristles undergo a rotation of ninety degrees. In the ananassae fruit fly group most of the twenty or so species have simple transverse sex combs, with Drosophila bipectinata and Drosophila parabipectinata the two exceptions. These fruit fly species possess rotating sex combs. Phylogenetic analysis conducted by investigators from the University of California, Davis indicates that the rotating sex combs in these two species re-evolved, twelve million years after being lost.7

The re-evolution of sexuality in mites belonging to the taxa, Crotoniidae. Mites exhibit a wide range of reproductive modes, including parthenogenesis. In fact, this means of reproduction is prominent in the group Oribatida, clustering into two subgroups that display parthenogenesis, almost exclusively. However, residing within one of these clusters is the taxa Crotoniidae, which displays sexual reproduction. Based on an evolutionary analysis, a team of German researchers conclude this group re-evolved the capacity for sexual reproduction.8

The re-evolution of shell coiling in limpets. From an evolutionary perspective, the coiled shell has been lost in gastropod lineages numerous times, producing a limpet shape, consisting of a cap-shaped shell and a large foot. Evolutionary biologists have long thought that the loss of the coiled shell represents an evolutionary dead end. However, researchers from Venezuela have shown that coiled shell morphology re-evolved, at least one time, in calyptraeids, 20 to 100 million years after its loss.9

This short list gives just a few recently discovered examples of Dollo’s Law violations. Surveying the scientific literature, evolutionary biologist J. J. Wiens identified an additional eight examples in which Dollo’s Law was violated and determined that in all cases the lost trait reappeared after at least 20 million years had passed and in some instances after 120 million years had transpired.10

Violation of Dollo’s Law and the Theory of Evolution

Given that the evolutionary paradigm predicts that re-evolution of traits should not occur after the trait has been lost for twenty million years, the numerous discoveries of Dollo’s Law violations provide a basis for skepticism about the capacity of the evolutionary paradigm to fully account for life’s history. The problem is likely worse than it initially appears. J. J. Wiens points out that Dollo’s Law violations may be more widespread than imagined, but difficult to detect for methodological reasons.11

In response to this serious problem, evolutionary biologists have offered two ways to account for Dollo’s Law violations.12 The first is to question the validity of the evolutionary analysis that exposes the violations. To put it another way, these scientists claim that the recently identified Dollo’s Law violations are artifacts of the evolutionary analysis, and not real. However, this work-around is unconvincing. The evolutionary biologists who discovered the different examples of Dollo’s Law violations were aware of this complication and took painstaking efforts to ensure the validity of the evolutionary analysis they performed.

Other evolutionary biologists argue that some genes and developmental modules serve more than one function. So, even though the trait specified by a gene or a developmental module is lost, the gene or the module remains intact because they serve other roles. This retention makes it possible for traits to re-evolve, even after a hundred million years. Though reasonable, this explanation still must be viewed as speculative. Evolutionary biologists have yet to apply the same mathematical rigor to this explanation as they have when estimating the timescale for loss of function in dormant genes. These calculations are critical given the expansive timescales involved in some of the Dollo’s Law violations.

Considering the nature of evolutionary processes, this response neglects the fact that genes and developmental pathways will continue to evolve under the auspices of natural selection, once a trait is lost. Free from the constraints of the lost function, the genes and developmental modules experience new evolutionary possibilities, previously unavailable to them. The more functional roles a gene or developmental module assumes, the less likely it is that these systems can evolve. Shedding one of their roles increases the likelihood that these genes and developmental pathways will become modified as the evolutionary process explores new space now available to it. In this scenario, it is reasonable to think that natural selection could modify the genes and developmental modules to such an extent that the lost trait would be just as unlikely to re-evolve as it would if gene loss was a consequence of neutral evolution. In fact, the study of eye loss in the Mexican tetra suggests that the modification of these genes and developmental modules could occur at a faster rate if governed by natural selection rather than neutral evolution.

Violation of Dollo’s Law and the Case for Creation

While Dollo’s Law violations are problematic for the evolutionary paradigm, the re-evolution—or perhaps, more appropriately, the reappearance—of the same biological traits after their disappearance makes sense from a creation model/intelligent design perspective. The reappearance of biological systems could be understood as the work of the Creator. It is not unusual for engineers to reuse the same design or to revisit a previously used design feature in a new prototype. While there is an irreversibility to the evolutionary process, designers are not constrained in that way and can freely return to old designs.

Dollo’s Law violations are at home in a creation model, highlighting the value of this approach to understanding life’s history.

Endnotes

  1. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (New York: W.W. Norton, 2015), 94.
  2. Charles R. Marshall, Elizabeth C. Raff, and Rudolf A. Raff, “Dollo’s Law and the Death and Resurrection of Genes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 91 (December 6, 1994): 12283–87.
  3. Michael Lynch and John S. Conery, “The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes,” Science 290 (November 10, 2000): 1151–54, doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1151.
  4. Meredith Protas et al., “Regressive Evolution in the Mexican Cave Tetra, Astyanax mexicanus,” Current Biology 17 (March 6, 2007): 452–54, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.051.
  5. John J. Wiens, “Re-evolution of Lost Mandibular Teeth in Frogs after More than 200 Million Years, and Re-evaluating Dollo’s Law,” Evolution 65 (May 2011): 1283–96, doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01221.x.
  6. Vincent J. Lynch and Günter P. Wagner, “Did Egg-Laying Boas Break Dollo’s Law? Phylogenetic Evidence for Reversal to Oviparity in Sand Boas (Eryx: Boidae),” Evolution 64 (January 2010): 207–16, doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00790.x.
  7. Thaddeus D. Seher et al., “Genetic Basis of a Violation of Dollo’s Law: Re-Evolution of Rotating Sex Combs in Drosophila bipectinata,” Genetics 192 (December 1, 2012): 1465–75, doi:10.1534/genetics.112.145524.
  8. Katja Domes et al., “Reevolution of Sexuality Breaks Dollo’s Law,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104 (April 24, 2007): 7139–44, doi:10.1073/pnas.0700034104.
  9. Rachel Collin and Roberto Cipriani, “Dollo’s Law and the Re-Evolution of Shell Coiling,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270 (December 22, 2003): 2551–55, doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2517.
  10. Wiens, “Re-evolution of Lost Mandibular Teeth in Frogs.”
  11. Wiens, “Re-evolution of Lost Mandibular Teeth in Frogs.”
  12. Rachel Collin and Maria Pia Miglietta, “Reversing Opinions on Dollo’s Law,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23 (November 2008): 602–9, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.013.
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2017/09/12/dollos-law-at-home-with-a-creation-model-reprised

Q&A: Is Evolution Falsifiable?

qaisevolutionfalsifiable

BY FAZALE RANA – OCTOBER 5, 2016

I expected to get a reaction—and I did.

Last week I posted the below ‘meme’ on my Facebook page and Twitter account, claiming that the evolutionary paradigm is unfalsifiable because of the stranglehold that methodological naturalism has on the operation of science.

is-evolution-falsifiable-1

And of course, it elicited a rather negative reaction by at least one atheist who listed a number of ways to falsify biological evolution, delineated by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne.

So, is biological evolution falsifiable? Was it unwarranted on my part to claim that biological evolution is unfalsifiable? Am I “full of it,” as this skeptic asserted?

My response: In principle, chemical and biological evolution are falsifiable, as are all scientific theories. But in reality, the evolutionary paradigm is unfalsifiable—because of the influence of methodological naturalism.

In effect, methodological naturalism restricts the available explanations for the universe and phenomena within the universe such as the origin and history of life. Certain explanations are off the table, a priori. As a consequence, intelligent design/creationism cannot be part of the construct of science.

The Effect of Methodological Naturalism on Scientific Inquiry

Methodological naturalism provides the philosophical framework for science. This concept is distinct, yet related to philosophical naturalism. According to philosophical naturalism, all that exists is the material, physical universe. There is no supernatural. There is no reality outside of the universe itself. There is no God. As the late astronomer Carl Sagan once quipped, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

In contradistinction to philosophical naturalism, methodological naturalism claims to be metaphysically neutral on the question of God’s existence. According to the tenets of methodological naturalism, when one engages in the scientific enterprise it is necessary to suspend belief in God, regardless of one’s personal convictions. The only allowed explanations for the universe and phenomena within the universe are natural process, mechanistic explanations. One cannot appeal to the supernatural. But that doesn’t mean the supernatural doesn’t exist. Simply put, the supernatural is not given a place in the scientific project.

In other words, if you believe that God exists, your views cannot influence the way in which you conduct science. Methodologically speaking, you must function as if God does not exist. Sometimes methodological naturalism is called provisional atheism or benchtop atheism. This restriction makes methodological naturalism functionally equivalent to philosophical naturalism, rendering science an inherently atheistic enterprise, though, again, its practitioners may well believe God exists.

In effect, methodological naturalism restricts the available explanations for the universe and phenomena within the universe such as the origin and history of life. Certain explanations are off the table, a priori. As a consequence, intelligent design/creationism cannot be part of the construct of science. Any explanation that states an intelligent agent is responsible for, say, the origin of life, is prohibited. As a result, chemical and biological evolution are the only available alternatives for someone who’s trying to scientifically account for the origin and history of life.

The net effect is this: Chemical and biological evolution are true by default, regardless of the evidence at hand. No matter how much evidence exists challenging the evolutionary paradigm, it cannot be supplanted because there is no other alternative explanation that is allowed.

A Failed Prediction for the Evolutionary Paradigm

As it turns out, discordant phylogenies plague evolutionary biologists. On this basis alone, one could conclude that the evolutionary paradigm has been falsified.

As an illustration of this point, consider one of the ways that Jerry Coyne thinks biological evolution can be falsified:

“Complete discordance between phylogenies based on morphology/fossils and on DNA. While individual genes can show discordance by lateral transfer—rotifers, for example, have incorporated into their genome from DNA from very unrelated organisms, and this is also common for bacteria. But lateral transfer of genes, as opposed to their direct descent from parent to offspring, is relatively uncommon. So, for example, if we sequenced the genome of a blue whale and found that on the whole the species was more closely related to fish than to mammals, we’d have a serious problem for the theory of evolution.”

Coyne’s prediction is similar to one made by the late evolutionary biologist Morris Goodman.According to Goodman, one of the founders of the discipline of molecular anthropology:

“If the biblical account of creation were true, then independent features of morphology, proteins, and DNA sequences would not be expected to be congruent with each other. Chaotic patterns, with different proteins and different DNA sequences failing to indicate any consistent set of species relationships, would contradict the theory of evolution.”1

As it turns out, discordant phylogenies plague evolutionary biologists. It is not uncommon for evolutionary trees built from morphological features to disagree with evolutionary trees built from DNA sequence data. Again, it is not uncommon for molecular phylogenies to disagree with one another when constructed using different regions of the genome. (For examples, see the articles listed below under Resources.) On this basis alone, one could conclude that the evolutionary paradigm has been falsified—or at minimum one would be justified to express skepticism about the capacity of the evolutionary paradigm to account for the origin, history, and design of life.

Again, these are not predictions made by intelligent design proponents or creationists. These are predictions made by evolutionary biologists, both of whom are (or were) skeptics. And on the basis of these predictions, the evolutionary paradigm has failed.

But Wait—Not So Fast

How do evolutionary biologists respond to the pervasive problem of discordant phylogenies?

By arguing that the discordance can be dismissed because morphological data is an unreliable indicator of evolutionary history. How do they know this is the case? Because morphological and molecular phylogenies disagree.

Or they claim that the discordance results from incomplete lineage sorting. How do they know incomplete lineage sorting has occurred? Because evolutionary trees built using different genes (or genomic regions) disagree.

Another way evolutionary biologists dismiss the discordant trees is to assert that some regions of the genomes are phylogenetically uninformative. That is, these regions of the genome don’t issue a phylogenetically reliable signal. How do evolutionary biologists know this to be the case? Because evolutionary trees built from certain regions of the genome don’t yield the expected results—and consequently, produce discordant phylogenies.

These responses are classical instances of circular reasoning. In effect, evolutionary biologists are using discordant evolutionary trees as a way to explain why discordant evolutionary trees result when they attempt to build phylogenies using different data sets.

Is Evolution Falsifiable?

Why the circular reasoning? Because if one adheres to methodological naturalism, the only valid scientific explanation for the origin and history of life is through some type of evolutionary process. Evolution must be true by default. Why? Because if the evolutionary paradigm is falsified, then the only other alternative is intelligent design/creationism. And this approach to biology is prohibited, a priori, because of philosophical commitments to a materialistic approach to the life sciences. This state of affairs can only lead to tautologies when failed predictions arise, though the tautologies are draped in scientific jargon.

So, is biological evolution falsifiable? Yes, in principle. But no, in reality.

I suspect that when evolutionary biologists list “if-they-are-true” observations that would disprove biological evolution, it doesn’t mean they are necessarily willing to consider another paradigm. Because if they were, they would readily see the evolutionary paradigm’s many shortcomings.

Resources

“Origin of Complex Cells: A Big Event for Evolution or Creation?” by Fazale Rana (article)
“DNA Sequences: More Is Not Better” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Birds Terrorize Evolutionary Biologists” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

  1. Morris Goodman, “Reconstructing Human Evolution from Proteins,” chap. 8.4 in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, Steve Jones et al., eds. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 307–13.
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2016/10/05/q-a-is-evolution-falsifiable

The Evolution of the Automobile: Evidence for Intelligent Design

theevolutionoftheautomobile

BY FAZALE RANA – AUGUST 3, 2016

“It’s déjà vu all over again.”

As the story goes, baseball player and manager Yogi Berra first uttered this famous yogi-ism sitting in the dugout watching Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris hit back-to-back home runs. Something that happened on more than one occasion.

Yogi Berra’s verbal blunders are legendary. But, perhaps none top the blunder made by biologist Tim Berra. Berra’s blunder didn’t have anything to do with what he said, but with what he wrote in his book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, published in 1990.

Berra’s Blunder

Targeting a nontechnical audience, Berra presented a case for biological evolution and explained why he and so many scientists think evolution is a fact. As part of this project, he described the evidence for human evolution, highlighting the progressive features of the hominid fossil record. Berra argues,

“If the australopithecines, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus were alive today, and if we could parade them before the world, there could be no doubt about our relatedness to them. It would be like attending an auto show. If you look at a 1953 Corvette and compare it to the latest model, only the most general resemblances are evident, but if you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people.”1

In comparing Corvette models with “transitional intermediates” in the fossil record, Berra made a significant error that has become known among creationists and ID proponents as Berra’s blunder. It almost goes without saying, Berra’s mistake was to use Corvettes—machines designed by automotive engineers—as an analogy for the hominid fossil record, claiming that sequential anatomical changes among the various hominid species reflect the outworking of an unguided evolutionary process in the same way that sequential design changes to Corvettes reflect the evolution of technology. But, as pointed out at that time by several creationists and intelligent design proponents, the Corvette sequence actually tells us something about how intelligent agents sometimes create: namely, designers can attain their goals by progressively modifying existing designs. To put it another way, the chronological appearance of organisms in the fossil record displaying serial changes to their anatomical, physiological, and behavioral features could be explained as the work of a Creator who was successively producing creatures that displayed modifications of an archetypical design. In this sense, the fossil record doesn’t necessarily compel reasonable people to accept biological evolution any more than does the evolution of the American automobile.

The sequential changes seen in the fossil record just as reasonably reflect the work of a mind as mechanism.

Déjà Vu Once More

Recently, researchers from UCLA made the same blunder as Tim Berra—all over again!2 These investigators wanted to understand the principles that influence the tempo and mode for technology development in a society. As a case study, these investigators examined the appearance and disappearance of American car and truck models manufactured between 1896 (when automobiles were first produced) and 2014, using the same approach that paleontologists might use to study the fossil record. Specifically, they monitored the year-by-year diversity of automobile models, paying special attention to the number of new models that were produced (analogous to speciation) each year and the number of discontinued models (analogous to extinction).

These researchers also explored the factors influencing the diversity of automobile models each year. Particularly, they assessed the effects of competition, and the impact of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and oil prices.

Their analysis indicates that the “origination” and “extinction” rates of automobile models displayed highly similar patterns over the course of the last 118 years. In both cases, origination and extinction rates were highest early in the automobile’s history, gradually declining to lower rates over time. The rates of decline dramatically slowed in the 1960s when the Big Three auto manufacturers rose to dominance in the American market place. Since the 1980s, the rate of automobile model extinction has outpaced the appearance rate of new models. However, during this time frame, the lifespan of automobile models has significantly increased.

The UCLA researchers also discovered that completion has had a much greater influence on automobile diversity than GDP and oil prices.

Based on these results, the authors of this study argue that when a technology is in its early stages, manufacturers introduce more experimental designs into the marketplace. But because these designs are experimental, they also disappear more rapidly. They maintain that the appearance and disappearance rates slow as dominant designs emerge. When that happens, it becomes too costly to introduce experimental models into the marketplace. Eventually, cost becomes such a significant factor that it causes the life expectancy of designs to persist for longer time periods.

Based on this study, the UCLA scientists predict that in the near future the number of hybrid and electric car designs will rapidly diversify—a radiation event, of sorts—because these technologies are in their nascent stages.

The Fossil Record and the Case for Creation

The UCLA researchers demonstrated that some of the techniques paleontologists use to study the fossil record—and hence, the history of life on Earth—can yield important insights about the way cultures and technologies change and develop. However, as with Berra’s blunder, they treated designed objects as if they were fossils, which, according to the evolutionary paradigm, are produced by unguided, mechanistic processes. The approach the UCLA research team used to study technology development, once again, highlights the fact that the sequential changes seen in the fossil record just as reasonably reflect the work of a mind as mechanism.

But, it is possible to take the implications of their work one step further. Not only can we argue that the progressive anatomical changes observed in fossilized organisms reflect the Creator’s handiwork, but so do overall patterns in the fossil record. The UCLA study demonstrates that when it comes to technology produced by human designers, the number of design variants and the rate that designs appear and disappear from the marketplace have a rational basis. Though the rationale may be different than what the UCLA researchers discovered for the automobile’s evolution, it becomes all the more reasonable to view changes in biological diversity and origination and extinction rates in the fossil record as reflecting a Creator’s intentional activity.

In other words, the evidence (the fossil record and homology) that biologists insist provides compelling support for the evolutionary paradigm actually finds ready explanation from a creation model perspective.

Resources

“Archetype or Ancestor? Sir Richard Owen and the Case for Design” by Fazale Rana (Article)

Endnotes
  1. Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), 117.
  2. Erik Gjesfjeld et al., “Competition and Extinction Explain the Evolution of Diversity in American Automobiles,” Palgrave Communications 2 (May 2016): 16019, doi:10.1057/palcomms.2016.19.
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2016/08/03/the-evolution-of-the-automobile-evidence-for-intelligent-design

Like a Fish Out of Water: Why I’m Skeptical of the Evolutionary Paradigm

likeafishoutofwater

BY FAZALE RANA – JULY 27, 2016

I am skeptical that evolutionary processes can fully account for life’s origin, history, and design—and that often makes me feel like a fish out of water.

“Mainstream” scientists view biological evolution as the organizing principle in biology. In fact, Russian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”1 So, when I question evolutionary explanations, I become an outsider. I am outside the fish bowl, looking in. Because I’m a biochemist, my critics accuse me of being either dishonest or incompetent. Why else would I question the “fact” of evolution in the face of the overwhelming evidence for common descent? They claim that theological—not scientific motivations fuel my skepticism.

I would partially agree with that assessment. I find it hard to square certain features of the evolutionary framework with some of Christianity’s most important biblical and theological ideas. But, I also think that there are some very real scientific problems associated with the evolutionary paradigm. The deficiencies are best exposed by failed predictions.

From my perspective, the unpredicted pervasiveness of convergence justifies skepticism about evolution’s capacity to fully account for the history and diversity of life on Earth. Convergence stands as a failed prediction.

Convergence

One of evolution’s failed predictions relates to the phenomenon known as convergence. This concept describes instances in which unrelated organisms possess nearly identical anatomical and physiological characteristics. Presumably, evolutionary pathways independently produced these identical (or near identical) features. Yet convergence doesn’t make much sense from an evolutionary perspective. Indeed, if evolution is responsible for the diversity of life, one would expect convergence to be extremely rare. As a I wrote in a previous blog post, the mechanism that drives the evolutionary process consists of an extended sequence of unpredictable, chance events. Given this mechanism, it seems improbable that disparate evolutionary pathways would ever lead to the same biological feature. To put it another way, examples of convergence should be rare.

The concept of historical contingency embodies the notion that evolution should be nonrepeatable, and is the theme of Stephen Jay Gould’s book Wonderful Life.2 To help clarify the concept of historical contingency, Gould used the metaphor of “replaying life’s tape.” If one were to push the rewind button, erase life’s history, and then let the tape run again, the results would be completely different each time.

Yet, biological convergence is widespread.3 Recently, researchers from the University of New South Wales (in Australia) added to the examples of convergence at an organismal level. From an evolutionary perspective, they showed that amphibious behavior in fish evolved 33 separate times among extant groups! In fact, in one family, fish adopted a terrestrial life style between 3 to 7 times.

This result was unexpected. One of the researchers involved with the study stated, “Because of the challenges fish face in being able to breathe and move and reproduce on land, it had been thought this was a rare occurrence.”4

Recently, another team of investigators from the University of Kansas identified another example of biochemical convergence. They showed that venom evolved, separately and independently, 18 times in fish that live in freshwater and marine environments. This result is all the more surprising because—as William Leo Smith, one of the study’s authors points out— “fish venoms are often super complicated, big molecules.”5

Does the Widespread Occurrence of Convergence Falsify Evolution?

From my perspective, the unpredicted pervasiveness of convergence justifies skepticism about evolution’s capacity to fully account for the history and diversity of life on Earth. It stands as a failed prediction. Yet many evolutionary biologists don’t see it that way. For example, the scientists from the University of New South Wales responded to their unexpected find this way: “Now we have shown this initial transition to land is quite common, it seems these challenges can be readily overcome.”6 However, their interpretation entails circular reasoning. Biologists thought that fish moving to land would be difficult given the immense challenges associated with this transition. But, when it was found to be a frequent occurrence, then they conclude it must be easy. But they have no reason to think it must be easy other than the widespread occurrence of this transition. I would contend that this circular reasoning reflects a deep-seated, a priori commitment to the evolutionary paradigm, in which evolution is accepted as fact, and no evidence can ever count against it.

Convergence and the Case for Intelligent Design

Though the idea of convergence fits awkwardly within the evolutionary framework, it makes perfect sense if a Creator is responsible for life. Instead of convergent features emerging through repeated evolutionary outcomes, they could be understood as reflecting the work of a Divine mind. The repeated origins of biological features equate to the repeated creations by an intelligent Agent who employs a common set of solutions to address a common set of problems facing unrelated organisms.

Resources
The Cell’s Design (book)

Endnotes
  1. Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher 35 (March 1971): 125–29.
  2. Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990).
  3. Simon Conway Morris, Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003); George McGhee, Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011).
  4. University of New South Wales, “Fish Out of Water Are More Common Than Thought,” ScienceDaily, June 22, 2016, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160622102129.htm.
  5. University of Kansas, “Researchers Tally Huge Number of Venomous Fishes, Tout Potential for Medical Therapies,” ScienceDaily, July 5, 2016, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160705160206.htm.
  6. “Fish Out of Water,” ScienceDaily.
Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2016/07/27/like-a-fish-out-of-water-why-i’m-skeptical-of-the-evolutionary-paradigm