Biology Teacher Jennifer Miller: Scientism in Action

Pennsylvania public school teacher Jennifer Miller testified at the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover trial five years ago. She teaches honors biology, anatomy and physiology at Dover Area Senior High School and for the past four years has chaired the school’s science department. Recently she had this to say to Scientific American:

How has teaching evolution in your classroom changed in the five years since Kitzmiller v. Dover?

Since Kitzmiller v. Dover I’ve definitely changed how I teach. The biggest thing is probably that evolution used to be the last thing we got to in the semester. Sometimes we maybe had one week or two weeks to cover it. Now I put evolution first, and I refer back to it to show how important it is to all topics of biology.

The other thing that I really think has changed is how I cover evolution. I'm no longer afraid to cover it in depth and to have in-depth conversations about evolution. I make sure I hit [the concept of] what is science and what is not, and how a scientific theory is very different from a "theory" that we use in everyday conversation.

A lot of teachers are wary of teaching evolution because of the controversy, and I was in that group—I didn't know if I could cover it, what I could say or couldn’t say. Now I do cover intelligent design, why it is not science, and why it should not be taught in a science classroom.

So intelligent design is not science and evolution is science. Continuing:

What are some common mistakes that teachers make in teaching evolution?
[…]

How do you see teaching evolution in schools changing in the next five years?
I wish that there were a lot more seminars so that people had more background in it. Maybe as we train new biology teachers—make sure that we give them what they really need to know—new teachers can arm themselves with the evidence that's out there. There is tons and tons of evidence for evolution, and it keeps piling up. As a teacher it’s hard to stay on top of that.

Tons and tons of evidence for evolution? That is certainly a happy coincidence.

What if the imposter had the “tons and tons of evidence”? And what if it was the “scientific” theory that was contradicted by the evidence? It’s a scary thought to be sure, but fortunately creationism is not only bogus science, it is also false. We all know the universe arose all by itself.

Fortunately we have public school teachers like Miller, backed by the wisdom of Judge Jones, to enlighten our children about these modern truths.

The Daffodil's Trumpet: A New Flower Part

The most common evidence for evolution are all the similarities between different species. Biology’s ubiquitous similarities are one of the reasons evolutionists say you can’t do research in the life sciences without evolution as your starting point. These similarities trace out evolutionary history, showing how different species are supposed to have evolved from each other. But what happens when biology reveals differences?

Botanists explain that flowers have four basic parts: sepals, petals, stamens and carpels. But new research shows that the daffodil’s trumpet is a fundamentally different thing. If similarities are such powerful evidence for evolution, then are differences such as the daffodil’s trumpet evidences against evolution? Of course not. As lead researcher, Oxford’s Professor Robert Scotland, explains:

The fascination for me has been because there are only four organs to most flowers, and because there’s so many different types of flowers and that basic system is highly conserved. The evolution of novelty within such a highly conserved but diverse system is interesting.

As this BBC video explains, the daffodil’s trumpet is an “example of evolution in action.” This reminds me of a debate I had with a professor who first claimed similarities between species were evidence for evolution, and then claimed differences between species were also evidence for evolution. I guess everything is evidence for evolution—that’s why it is true.

Unexpected Role for Ciliary Photoreceptor Cells in a Brachiopod

New research has discovered ciliary photoreceptor cells providing directional light detection in the brachiopod Terebratalia transversa. This unexpected finding further complicates the already circuitous evolutionary narrative of the origins of vision at the cellular level.

Background

At the molecular level vision begins with a complex signal transduction cascade. As photons enter your eye they interact with light-sensitive chromophore molecules in the photoreceptor cells. The interaction causes the chromophore to change configuration and this, in turn, influences the large, trans-membrane rhodopsin protein to which the chromophore is attached.

The chromophore photoisomerization is the beginning of a remarkable cascade that causes action potentials to be triggered in the optic nerve. In response to the chromophore photoisomerization, the rhodopsin causes the activation of hundreds of transducin molecules. These, in turn, cause the activation of cGMP phosphodiesterase (by removing its inhibitory subunit), an enzyme that degrades the cyclic nucleotide, cGMP.

A single photon can result in the activation of hundreds of transducins, leading to the degradation of hundreds of thousands of cGMP molecules. cGMP molecules serve to open non selective ion channels in the membrane, so reduction in cGMP concentration serves to close these channels. This means that millions of sodium ions per second are shut out of the cell, causing a voltage change across the membrane. This hyperpolarization of the cell membrane causes a reduction in the release of neurotransmitter, the chemical that interacts with the nearby nerve cell, in the synaptic region of the cell. This reduction in neurotransmitter release ultimately causes an action potential to arise in the nerve cell.

This is the beginning of vision. And while there are variations on this remarkable sequence, it is found throughout the wide variety of vision systems found in biology. It is even found in the relatively simple, non image forming, third-eye. You can read more about this here.

Phylogenetic duplicity

Because this signal transduction cascade is so widespread, evolutionists must envision it to be present in the earliest organisms with vision capabilities. This need for evolution to have created unimaginable complexity early on is a consistent theme in evolutionary theory. Over and over, the fascinating designs found in biology must have, according to evolution, appeared early on, even before any need for such marvels.

For vision, this theme of early complexity is repeated at the cellular level, where two distinct photoreceptor cell morphologies—rhabdomeric and ciliary—are found. These two morphologies have different membrane folding strategies as well as biochemical pathways. But their widespread presence in organisms forces evolutionists to conclude they both must have been present in the last common bilaterian ancestor. Rhabdomeric photoreceptor cells are often associated with invertebrates and ciliary photoreceptor cells with vertebrates, but both invertebrates and vertebrates have cells with both morphologies.

And so both morphologies must trace back to that last common bilaterian ancestor. While it may stretch common sense for early evolution to create such complexity in duplicate, if you believe it can perform the feat once, then why not twice?

But there is more to the story. In invertebrates the ciliary morphology plays a lesser role. It is not found to provide directional light detection, but in more rudimentary light detection roles. So how then does it emerge as the chief architecture in vertebrate vision systems? The evolutionary narrative calls for a migration of the ciliary photoreceptor cells to the retina where they overtake the rhabdomeric photoreceptor cells while attaining new visionary skills. Why (and how) this would happen is anyone’s guess.

Only a few years ago evolutionists were confident of this narrative. It was, according to evolutionists, a compelling story that reaffirmed the truth of evolution. These amazing claims were yet another demonstration of how evolutionists interpret unlikely data into a favorable apologetic.

But now the story has become even more unlikely. The new research has indeed found ciliary photoreceptor cells providing directional light detection in Terebratalia transversa, an invertebrate. The narrative of ciliary photoreceptor cells migrating to the retina in vertebrates suddenly makes little sense. Evolution needs a new narrative, and as usual it is more complex:

The presence of ciliary photoreceptor-based eyes in protostomes suggests that the transition between non-visual and visual functions of photoreceptors has been more evolutionarily labile than previously recognized, and that co-option of ciliary and rhabdomeric photoreceptor cell types for directional light detection has occurred multiple times during animal evolution.

In other words, yes that evolutionary scenario we were so confident of must be discarded, but so what? We can always add more drama to the plot line. Whatever biology reveals, it must have evolved—theory respectability is not important. Religion drives science, and it matters.

A Protein Folding Experiment Shows Secondary Structure Does Not Form Before Tertiary Structure

Your cells create proteins, which then perform various function, via an intricate sequence of steps. Proteins open the DNA molecule exposing the genetic information, a protein machine then copies the sequence of exposed DNA nucleotides, the resulting transcript is edited and then passed to a ribosome, at the ribosome the universal genetic code is used to translate nucleotide triplets into amino acids, the amino acids are attached together in a line like train cars hitched together, the amino acid chain folds up and is transported elsewhere where it performs a precise function, probably after forming a multi-protein machine.

This high-level summary gives an idea of the immense complexity of proteins, but there are a great many more details. For instance, protein molecular structures fall into a four-level hierarchy. The line of amino acids attached one to the next is called the protein’s primary structure. This line forms repeating patterns (helices and strands) in the folded up protein called the protein’s secondary structure. The folded up protein is called the tertiary structure. And proteins binding together form the quaternary structure.

But these structures may not always appear in this order. For instance, the secondary structure may form as a consequence of the tertiary structure coming together, rather than forming before this folding up process. Also, the tertiary structure may not form until the protein binds with its partner to form the quaternary structure.

These two facts were used in new research. A peptide that forms its tertiary structure after binding with its partner was used to determine when the peptide's secondary structure forms. Such secondary structure might provide a good framework as the peptide binds to the protein. But the researchers found that the secondary structure is not present as the peptide is folding. Rather, it appears after binding with the partner protein, and after the folding process.

Richard Olson: An Educator Who is Trying to Educate

With the incessant drumbeat of the warfare thesis—the conviction that, where they interact, religion and science are in conflict—amongst pundits and the media, one occasionally wonders if historians are working hard enough. While academics write papers for each other explaining how deeply flawed is the warfare thesis, the nightly news hasn’t received the message. Are historians oblivious to the disconnect? No, at least Richard Olson isn’t. Here is what he says in his new Zygon paper:

I argue that for psychological and social reasons, the traditional “Conflict Model” of science and religion interactions has such a strong hold on the nonexpert imagination that counterexamples and claims that interactions are simply more complex than the model allows are inadequate to undermine its power.

Yes, well put. The warfare thesis indeed has such a strong hold on the nonexpert imagination that it seems to be impervious to facts.

Taxonomies, such as those of Ian Barbour and John Haught, which characterize conflict as only one among several possible relationships, help. But these taxonomies, by themselves, fail to offer an account of why different relationships prevail among different communities and how they succeed one another within particular communities ­that is, they contain no dynamic elements.

True, most taxonomies of the various ways religion and science interact are inadequate. They miss the most important interaction of all.

To undermine the power of the “Conflict Model,” we should be seeking to offer alternative models for science and religion interactions that can both incorporate the range of stances articulated by scholars like Barbour and which can offer an account of the process by which differing attitudes succeed one another.

Yes, and until historians more actively elucidate the most important interaction—where religion is the queen and science the handmaiden—progress will be limited. How are we to understand the evolutionist’s stream of religious mandates (such as here) followed by their insistence that evolution is nothing more than objective science (such as here and here)? I’m afraid all the alternative models historians can suppose will not help until the basic, fundamental assertions of evolutionary thought are acknowledged.

John Beddington and Intolerance of Pseudo-Science

It is good to see the growing impatience of religiously motivated pseudo-science. Too often science has been, and continues to be, religion’s handmaiden. In fact it is surprising there hasn’t been a stronger backlash. But now it may be coming on too strong—the backlash may be more of whiplash. Witness Government Chief Scientific Adviser John Beddington’s recent remarks:

In closing remarks to an annual conference of around 300 scientific civil servants on 3 February, in London, Beddington said that selective use of science ought to be treated in the same way as racism and homophobia. “We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of racism. We are grossly intolerant, and properly so, of people who [are] anti-homosexuality...We are not—and I genuinely think we should think about how we do this—grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method,” he said.

Beddington said he intends to take this agenda forward with his fellow chief scientists and also with the research councils. “I really believe that … we need to recognise that this is a pernicious influence, it is an increasingly pernicious influence and we need to be thinking about how we can actually deal with it.

“I really would urge you to be grossly intolerant … We should not tolerate what is potentially something that can seriously undermine our ability to address important problems.

“There are enough difficult and important problems out there without having to … deal with what is politically or morally or religiously motivated nonsense.”

It is refreshing to see strong words against “religiously motivated nonsense,” but I am afraid this may be a sign of dangerous overreactions to come. Yes, evolution is every bit as dangerous as Beddington suggests. In fact it is arguably far more dangerous than racism and homophobia.

But evolutionists are not guilty of hatred as are racists. Yes evolutionists bring us “religiously motivated nonsense” as Beddington puts it. Yes they cherry-pick the facts, misrepresent science and have a pernicious influence. It is difficult not to be a little bit angry with them. But we must not overreact. Rather than speak of intolerance we must speak of forgiveness. We must exchange our anger for love. I do not urge you to be grossly intolerant.

This Just In: Plants Have Leaves—Evolution Must Be True

As if evolution was not silly enough already evolutionists are now claiming that the fact that different plants all have leaves is a compelling evidence for their belief that all of nature just happened to spontaneously arise, all by itself. I occasionally enjoy a good spoof, but this is no joke. You can see this evolutionary logic for yourself right here. Some may find this unbelievable but this example, while stupefying, is actually representative of evolutionary thinking.

Evolutionary cannot explain how a single protein first arose, much less molecular machines, cells, multicellular organisms, nervous systems, cellular transduction, and a thousand other designs. In fact biology is full of fantastic, unique solutions no one would have ever guessed. Consider all the different kinds of plants biology has to offer.

Cactus plant leaves, for instance, are like spines whereas poinsettia leaves are like flower petals. On the other hand the venus flytrap leaves are like jaws that close to catch insects, and the pitcher plant leaves form a pitcher to catch insects. Of course beyond unfounded speculation about blind mutations just happening to construct such marvels, evolutionists have no scientific explanation for how these arose. Yet amazingly, in biology’s unlikely designs such as these evolutionists are certain their idea is proven. They write:

In the following photos of plants, the leaves are quite different from the “normal” leaves we envision. Each leaf has a very different shape and function, yet all are homologous structures, derived from a common ancestral form. The pitcher plant and Venus’ flytrap use leaves to trap and digest insects. The bright red leaves of the poinsettia look like flower petals. The cactus leaves are modified into small spines which reduce water loss and can protect the cactus from herbivory.

Derived from a common ancestral form? And how do evolutionists know these radically different designs evolved from a common ancestor? Well, because they are homologous, that’s how. And after all, homologous structures share a common ancestor. Amazing.

The next example, the tetrapod forelimb, is equally silly. Take a look at the eusthenopteron forelimb and the rabbit forelimb, for instance, in the figure. Like the plant leaves, these designs are radically different.

Yet we are told this “demonstrates their common ancestry.” Demonstrates their common ancestry? How are these demonstrations of common ancestry? In fact there is no demonstration of common ancestry here. Evolutionists show some nice illustrations of radically different plants and animals, and simply assert that this is a demonstration of common ancestry. This is the height of absurdity.

The evolutionary argument is that evolution is restricted to certain designs. And while such designs evolve a bit, the underlying design framework is unchangeable. Evolution is stuck with it. Hence these similarities, even such remote similarities, are compelling demonstrations of evolution.

There are two problems here. First, the claim affirms the consequent. If a hypothesis successfully makes a prediction, that does not mean the hypothesis is correct. Second, the claim is false. Evolutionists routinely ascribe complete redesigns to evolution. Evolution is supposedly capable of complete makeovers. But then when a pattern is observed, we are told evolution is stuck with it. Evolutionists just make up whatever suits the moment. In fact if evolution is so stuck with designs, then it would clearly be falsified, as it wouldn’t be able to come up with all those new designs it is always devising.

But if all this seems unlikely, is it not better than separate ancestry? Using this reasoning, evolution, it turns out, is impervious to low likelihoods. It doesn’t matter if the evidence is astronomically unlikely. In fact, the more unlikely the better because the alternative is even worse. Evolutionary philosopher Elliott Sober has analyzed how common descent advances via this contrastive thinking. The powerful arguments and evidence do not actually bolster the theory but rather they rebuke the alternative. He explains it this way:

This last result provides a reminder of how important the contrastive framework is for evaluating evidence. It seems to offend against common sense to say that E is stronger evidence for the common-ancestry hypothesis the lower the value is of [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis]. This seems tantamount to saying that the evidence better supports a hypothesis the more miraculous the evidence would be if the hypothesis were true. Have we entered a Lewis Carroll world in which down is up? No, the point is that, in the models we have examined, the ratio [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis divided by the probability of E given the separate-ancestry hypothesis] goes up as [the probability of E given the common-ancestry hypothesis] goes down. … When the likelihoods of the two hypotheses are linked in this way, it is a point in favor of the common-ancestry hypothesis that it says that the evidence is very improbable. [Evidence and Evolution, p. 314]

In other words, it doesn’t matter that common descent is not a good theory. It must be true because the alternative is even worse. Sober refers to this mode of reasoning as Darwin’s Principle. It seems evolutionists can talk themselves into anything, including the claim that leaves prove their unlikely idea. Religion drives science and it matters.

Addendum:

An evolutionist commented that my Sober quote above is misleading, and my summary that it doesn’t matter that common descent is not a good theory is erroneous. He reasoning was that I took the Sober quote out of context and used an ellipses to manipulate the meaning of the quote.

This is yet another example of how evolutionists are unable to face the reality of their theory and its implications. No matter how much evidence they are presented with, evolutionists will never agree with the obvious. First the idea that the ellipses hides some crucial message from Sober that is the key to the passage, and without it I have manipulated the meaning, is pathetic. In fact, what I omitted were three sentences that further reinforce the point. I omitted them simply because they are redundant and full of jargon. Here they are:

An easy way to see this point is to imagine that Pr(1 --> 1) = 1, Pr(0 --> 1) = 0, and let Pr(Z = 1) = p, where Z, recall, is an ancestor of the observed species X and Y. Then the likelihood of CA is p and the likelihood of SA is p^2, so the likelihood ratio of CA to SA is 1/p. Now it is obvious how the evidence for CA gets stronger as p gets smaller.

So in this example, Sober argues that the common ancestry hypothesis (CA) improves as its likelihood decreases. It is no different than the surrounding passage. His reasoning is that as the likelihood of CA decreases, the likelihood of the separate ancestry hypothesis (SA) decreases even more. So when compared to SA, CA looks better when the evidence says it is even more unlikely. It is an example of how evolutionists use pretzel logic to try to make their idea attain that status of a fact.

But the evolutionist complained that "It's a pretty big stretch (to put it mildly) to take this specific argument about probabilities of character states and represent it as referring to the entire theory of common descent."

But of course I did not represent it as referring to the entire theory of common descent. As I explained above, the Sober analysis applies to the evolutionist's silly arguments that plants having leaves demonstrates common descent. In fact, I was quite clear about this: I wrote:

But if all this seems unlikely, is it not better than separate ancestry?

In other words, I first explained that the evolutionist argument appears silly, and I then provided a particular evolutionary interpretation of the evidence to which the Sober analysis directly applies.

This is a good example of how debates and discussions go with evolutionists. They begin with a religiously motivated, unscientific idea, and from there is it absurdities, fallacies and canards, one after the other.

John Lynch on The Voyage that Shook the World

The National Center for Science Education, whose mission is to defend the teaching of evolution in public schools, recently published a review of the film Darwin: The Voyage that Shook the World. The review was written by John Lynch, an evolutionary biologist and historian of science, and Jim Lippard, a student, both at Arizona State University. Aside from misrepresenting science, the review also misrepresents my views and contribution to the film. Lynch and Lippard write:

Near the end of the film, it is stated that in Darwin’s time, science was only beginning to emerge from philosophy, and that Darwin’s project was philosophical and anti-religious as much as it was scientific.

Lynch and Lippard then suggest that this position was probably inspired by me. I was of course surprised to read such a blatant misrepresentation of my view. After all, I have written several books, websites, and blogs on the fact that evolution entails religious and metaphysical premises.

In fact, in the film I made this quite clear. Near the end of the film, I stated that:

150 years later, it is clear that Darwin’s theory of evolution is really not about science, it’s about god.

How could the historian of science Lynch possibly foul this up. Not only did I not say Darwin’s project was anti-religious, I clearly and unambiguously stated the exact opposite. Darwin’s writings are chocked full of religious and metaphysical concerns and arguments. And they build on religious sentiment that had been influencing studies of the nature for two centuries leading up to Darwin. But Lynch is an evolutionist, and for evolutionists the warfare thesis is standard fare. Religion drives science, and it matters.

Like Not Believing in Algebra

Though evolutionists insist evolution is a fact many life scientists do not share their conviction. Our entire existence including all of biology, according to evolutionists, just happened to arise on its own—somehow. Nothing in biology makes sense, they claim, except in the light of evolution. But such dogma has badly failed. Not only are their claims not scientific to begin with (“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is equivalent to an if-and-only-if statement which is impossible within the bounds of science), but evolution’s fundamental predictions are consistently proven wrong. It is hardly surprising that many life scientists hold a more tentative view. But one recent survey revealed that even biology teachers routinely fail to carry out their duties of indoctrinating young students. The responses of evolutionists are telling.

A recent Pennsylvania State study by two political scientists reveals that most US public high school teachers are either uncomfortable with teaching evolution or doubtful of its accuracy. Clearly teachers are not carrying the water for evolutionists and something must be done. In lamenting this state of affairs Nature blogger Adam Mann begins with yet another erroneous reference to the Scopes Monkey Trial:

Almost a century after the famed Scopes Monkey Trial, battles over teaching evolution versus creationism in US public schools persist - but they have shifted to individual classrooms where teachers have a vast influence over whether evolution is present, a new study finds.

Of course the Scopes Monkey Trial was not simply a battle over teaching evolution versus creationism. It was an ACLU-spearheaded advocacy for the religious thinking that is the heart of evolutionary thought, as made obvious in the famous grilling of William Jennings Bryan by Clarence Darrow on the Bible’s foolishness.

Next Mann erroneously equates intelligent design with creationism to present the usual black/white picture to the reader. There are the bad guys over there seeking to spread dangerous lies, and then there are evolutionists—the vanguard of scientific truth and justice. Mann quotes William Wallace of the National Association of Biology Teachers to elaborate on this dangerous state of affairs:

Since evolution is the fundamental concept unifying biology, it is surprising how many high school biology teachers are unaccepting or uneasy with it, says William Wallace, the Washington D.C. representative of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “It’s like a math teacher not believing in algebra,” he says. Better instruction during a prospective biology teacher's college training could help mitigate this fact, he says, a position the researchers advocate for as well.

Not believing that evolution is an undeniable fact is like not believing in algebra? Given evolution’s substantial failure and algebra’s foundational status, it would be difficult to imagine a less appropriate comparison. Algebra is a branch of mathematics, evolution is a religiously-driven theory that contradicts the empirical evidence. If evolutionists are concerned about the  harmful effects of religion on science they should look closer to home.

Anthony Hopkins Schools Charlie Rose on the Religion in Science

As if we needed more evidence that myths abound regarding how science handles religion, Charlie Rose supplied it in abundance in his interview with legendary actor Anthony Hopkins last week. Fortunately Hopkins was able to disabuse the audience of Rose’s misconceptions, though it is not clear Rose was the better for it. Here is the relevant discussion, beginning at the 11:25 mark of the interview:

CR: You see it’s fascinating to me, because I’ve had, in a variety of television series—things that I have done having to do with scientists—and scientists can’t go there, because they can’t prove it—

AH: Can’t go where?

CR: To faith! Because they’re not willing to—most of them, certainly there are exceptions—but I mean people like, you know Nobel Laureates. They can’t go there, because they can’t prove it … Scientists in the end say “I can’t go there,” because they can’t prove it, and their intellectual—their whole being as a scientist—

AH: But there are many physicists who do believe. Dealing in particle physics for example, people are getting close to the essence of power of the—

CR: Well that’s part of what they’re working on in Geneva, is sort of the duplicating creation—

AH: And Einstein said … I don’t believe in a personal god, I believe in the god of Spinoza, where there’s an intelligence and a supreme awe-inspiring design at the back of the cosmos, starting from the Big Bang. Charles Darwin was a staunch member of his own church—he was a protestant. And when he went on the voyage of the Beagle it astonished him, the extraordinary range of life, and the power of life itself. And he never gave up his faith. Galileo was a man of the church—never opposed the church, but he got into a lot of trouble because he said things that upset the apple cart.

Hilarious. In response to Rose’s mythical meanderings, the actor Anthony Hopkins, without a moment of preparation, launches into a perfectly cogent discussion of the relationship between science and religion. In the space of 1 minute and 16 seconds Hopkins effectively deconstructs the media’s mythology. He begins with the diagnosis, cutting to the core with the simple question: “Can’t go where?” From there he begins with today’s scientists, and then progresses through classic historical examples (in order!) of Einstein, Darwin and Galileo—three of the most influential scientists in the history of modern science, each with their own different faith. Yes, his description of Darwin’s faith commitment may have been slightly off, but his overall thesis was spot on. I’m sure the audience learned something, but I doubt the myth makers did.

The Enduring Warfare Thesis Theses

Though historians tell us that the warfare thesis—the idea that the relationship between science and religion has been mostly one of conflict—is discredited, there seems to be a great many who have not yet learned of its demise. Not only is the warfare thesis alive and well in popular culture, it is also promoted by those who probably should know better. In fact in the origins debate each side has its own version. Why is the warfare thesis so enduring? One reason is that, like any good lie, there is some truth to it. Probably a better reason is its rhetorical power. But perhaps the main reason is that we need it—our religion demands it.

The warfare thesis is usually identified with a nineteenth century evolutionary movement that cast evolution skepticism as religiously driven. Men such as Darwin confidant Thomas Huxley, chemistry professor John Draper and Cornell University cofounder Andrew White promoted the warfare thesis as a general trend in the relationship between religion and science.

A popular prooftext is the Galileo Affair. But the seventeenth century debate about geocentrism versus heliocentrism, involving Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church, was hardly obvious. Subtleties in both the science and religion make simple stereotypes difficult to come by. Rather than serving as supporting evidence, the Galileo Affair is one of many problems with the warfare thesis.

Of course there are people who oppose strong scientific findings on religious grounds. Geocentrism still has its proponents. But the relationship between science and religion has generally been far more complex than one of simple obstructionism and conflict.

What the warfare thesis did provide, nonetheless, was powerful evolutionary rhetoric. This is exemplified no better than in Jerome Lawrence’s and Robert Lee’s Inherit the Wind. I once debated an evolutionist professor directly following the staging of this fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes Monkey trial. It was like arguing against a war after a propaganda film. I made some powerful scientific points but they were met with empty stares while the professor’s metaphysical mandates for evolution received approving nods all around.

It was yet another example of the complexity of the relationship between science and religion. I, though billed as the “science skeptic,” made scientific arguments whereas the professor, though billed as the “science defender,” made religious arguments.

Historians note that religion has provided ideas for science. Did not Darwin learn about scarce resources from the cleric Thomas Malthus? But evolutionary thought does not merely draw on a few religious ideas for inspiration. Evolution rests on a religious foundation and mandate that dates back long before Darwin and remains crucial today.

In evolutionary thought, the relationship between science and religion is better modeled according to the centuries old adage: Theology is queen of the sciences. This view, of course, badly damages evolution’s claim to be a scientific fact and hence the warfare thesis. How better to handle a liability than to assign it to the opposition? Evolutionists need the warfare thesis, their religion demands it.

The other warfare thesis

But evolutionists are not the only ones who have a warfare thesis. Evolution’s skeptics also have one. While evolutionists blame the skeptics for being religious, the skeptics blame evolutionists for not being religious. Consider the seventeenth century Anglican cleric Thomas Burnet who was accused of atheism by Richard Bentley. Burnet was widely read and had lasting influence. He presented a variety of evidences and arguments that god would only use natural laws and processes to create the world. One may agree or disagree with his ideas, but Burnet certainly was no atheist.

A century later the equally religious James Hutton endured the atheist accusation, and after Darwin it became common for skeptics to equate evolution with atheism or naturalism. Most recently Albert Mohler writes:

The debate over Darwinism rages on, with almost every week bringing a new salvo in the great controversy. The reason for this is simple and straightforward – naturalistic evolution is the great intellectual rival to Christianity in the Western world. It is the creation myth of the secular elites and their intellectual weapon of choice in public debate.

In some sense, this has been true ever since Darwin.  …

Darwin’s central defenders today oppose even the idea known as “Intelligent Design.” Their worldview is that of a sterile box filled only with naturalistic precepts.

From the beginning of this conflict, there have been those who have attempted some form of accommodation with Darwinism. In its most common form, this amounts to some version of “theistic evolution” – the idea that the evolutionary process is guided by God in order to accomplish His divine purposes.

But evolutionary thought does not stem from naturalistic precepts. True, evolutionists insist on strict secondary causation in their explanation of origins, but the motivation and justification for this dogma is religious. And just as the evolutionary warfare thesis holds scientific concerns to be inconsequential compared to the supposed religious motivations, so too this warfare thesis holds religious arguments to be inconsequential compared to the supposed atheism or materialism. Such religious arguments are, according to this warfare thesis, nothing but mere accommodationism.

As before, there is much truth to this thesis. Certainly evolution has fueled atheism and materialism. And the growing atheism, in turn, promotes evolution. But evolution also fuels theism. Process theology, for instance, has strong influences from evolution. This is hardly surprising given the religious thought that mandated evolution in the first place. Any atheism to be found is parasitic on the underlying theism. Far from an attempt at accommodation, the theism is the driving force.

Consider, for example, the case of eighteenth century religious skeptic, David Hume. The influential Scottish philosopher promoted evolutionary thought and Darwin was well versed in Hume’s arguments which occasionally even show up in Origins, albeit with the usual Darwinian touch of subtlety.

If ever there was an opportunity to trace the path of atheism’s or naturalism’s influence it would be here. But what we find is exactly the opposite. Hume’s (and Darwin’s) arguments were mostly theological and occasionally philosophical, but never from atheism. Indeed, while Hume was a great rhetoritician and creative in his own right, many of his arguments can be seen in earlier theists.

It is not a large step to move from Malebranche’s and Leibniz’s naturalistic solutions to the problem of evil to Hume’s argument against a divine design of a world so filled with misery. And like any good student of debate, Hume could with equal skill marshal the opposing arguments. Arnauld’s rejection of such theodicies by appeal to the mysteries of the divine can be seen in Hume’s anthropomorphic warning. We must not think we can anywise conceive the perfections of god, so the design inference must be rejected. And Hume’s arguments against miracles came after decades of debate amongst theists.

Hume is by no means an isolated example. Today, for instance, Richard Dawkins argues god would never have designed the blind spot in our retina, and PZ Myers believes god would not have created this universe. And more important than the atheists are the theists who initiated and promoted the many metaphysical arguments that mandate evolution. For centuries they have insisted god would work strictly through secondary causes and be undetectable. This is the foundation of evolutionary thought. It is anything but atheistic.

But while this warfare thesis may not be accurate, it is powerful rhetoric. How better to construct an enemy than to blame it on the secularists or atheists? As with the evolutionist’s warfare thesis, this one is an enduring theme.

And by blaming evolution on the atheists one can avoid the difficult metaphysical and theological issues evolutionists raise. What about Burnet’s and Kant’s greater god argument, and what about Leibniz’s problem of evil? And what about those fossils and design similarities? There is no need to address these evolutionary questions if it can all be dismissed as a secularist agenda. But it isn’t.

In the origins debate each side has its own warfare thesis, and these opposing theses serve many purposes. Unfortunately these theses are misconceptions at best, and self-serving religiously driven fictions at worst.

Insect Eyes Inspire More Efficient Solar Power

Moths not only see well in the night, they also keep a low profile and that technology is now making its way into solar cell design. As one report explains:

The eyes of moths, which allow them to see well at night, are also covered with a water-repellent, antireflective coating that makes their eyes among the least reflective surfaces in nature and helps them hide from predators in the dark. Mimicking the moth eye's microstructure, a team of researchers in Japan has created a new film, suitable for mass-production, for covering solar cells that can cut down on the amount of reflected light and help capture more power from the sun.

It is yet another example of nature’s remarkable designs finding application in engineering work.

The Hierarchy of Evolutionary Apologetics: Protein Evolution Case Study

A common retort from evolution’s defenders is that all those scientists can’t be wrong. Is it conceivable that so many scientific papers and reports, with their conclusions about evolution, are making the same mistake? Before answering this we first must understand the hierarchy of the evolution apologetics literature. At the base of the pyramid are the scientific papers documenting new research findings. Next up are the review papers that organize and summarize the state of the research. And finally there is the popular literature, such as newspaper and magazine articles, and books. Across this hierarchy evolutionists make different types of claims that should not be blindly lumped together. Yes, there are problems across the spectrum, but they tend to be different kinds of problems.

Background: The Hierarchy of Evolutionary Apologetics

Scientific papers document important and perfectly legitimate research. The results are usually presented carefully and rarely are they exaggerated. And it is difficult to find such papers claiming that evolution is a fact.

These papers do, however, discuss the results strictly in terms of evolution. No matter how unlikely evolution is given the results, they are interpreted as though evolution were the only explanation. Problematic results, and they are common, are not allowed to suggest epistemological challenges. They may only pose theoretical problems.

The authors cannot suggest that we may not, after all, know evolution to be a fact. They may only point out our ignorance of how it is supposed to have occurred. In all of this it is difficult to avoid misrepresentations of the research results, but such blunders are limited by the narrow scope of such papers.

Review and survey papers, on the other hand, do make more expansive evolutionary claims. These review papers draw on the vast body of research literature to organize and summarize the state of the research. They draw broader conclusions, and when discussing the subject of evolution these papers are more likely to make obviously unsupportable evolutionary claims.

Finally the popular literature is the next step beyond the review papers. If the review papers are summaries for scientists, the popular literature provides summaries for the non scientific audience. It is here that the dogmatic, sweeping evolutionary claims are most prevalent. Evolution must be a fact, all the scientific evidence unquestionably supports and proves evolution, doubters have nothing but nefarious motivations, there is war between science and religion, and so forth.

In terms of sheer magnitude, the first category—the narrowly focused research papers—dominates the literature. And here there is far less speculation and far more technical detail. Problems do arise in the evolutionary interpretations of the results, but such speculation is a minor part of the paper.

But like toxic pollutants that accumulate and reach increasing concentrations at higher levels of the food chain, the speculation becomes amplified in the review papers, and then even more so in the popular literature. Like a morphing rumor, what begins as tentative and unlikely speculation of how evolution might account for problematic findings ultimately becomes yet another evolutionary proof text in the popular literature.

So when evolutionists argue that those scientific papers and reports cannot all be wrong, we might agree with them. The technical details of the scientific research are certainly not wrong. True, there are misrepresentations of science when the results are force fit into evolution, but the far more egregious misrepresentations of science are found as one moves up the hierarchy of the evolution literature.

Case study: Protein evolution

Imagine a choppy ocean filled with waves for as far as the eye can see. Meanwhile the sky is dotted with an occasional jet airliner flying far above. This scene gives an idea of what science is telling us about protein evolution. A protein consists of hundreds of amino acids glued together in a long sequence. Because nature uses 20 different amino acids, the total number of possible sequences is astronomically huge. For a protein with 300 amino acids in all, for instance, there are 20^300 (roughly equal to a one followed by 390 zeros) different possible sequences.

It is an ocean of possibilities. But the vast majority of these possible amino acid sequences are worthless to evolution. Not only are they essentially dysfunctional themselves, but even as evolutionary starting points they don’t lead to much better designs. If you evolve a typical randomly selected amino acid sequence, you can improve the design a bit, but the search quickly stagnates.

Like the choppy ocean, the protein function landscape seems to be filled with a great many swells. Evolution can move up from the bottom of a swell to the top of a nearby wave, but this is only a minor improvement in the protein function. Go any further and evolution would fall into the neighboring swell, leaving it no better off than when it started.

Very rarely, in this seemingly endless sea of minor ups and downs, an extremely efficient, functional protein punctuates the protein function landscape. Here the landscape rapidly shoots up into the sky. This is not a gradual rise leading to these lofty and tiny regions of functional proteins. Rather, the landscape abruptly rises to heights far above the ocean’s surface. Like the jet airliners flying far above the ocean, proteins appear to be rare events in an otherwise non descript landscape.

Several types of protein studies point to this conclusion. Some of these studies begin with random amino acid sequences and attempt to evolve them toward nature’s proteins or something like them. These studies show that only minor functionality can be evolved from random starting points. Nature’s marvels, or anything like them, are so astronomically rare evolution would never find them using its blind, adaptive walk. (This is to say nothing of how the machinery for such a search could have evolved in the first place.)

Other studies begin not with a random amino acid sequence, but rather work backwards from a known protein. These studies show that proteins are quite sensitive. The function of a typical protein exponentially degrades as random mutations are introduced.

Whether we start at the beginning or the end, the science tells us that the protein function landscape is not one of smooth funnels leading to fantastic molecular machines, as evolution would expect.

And as it seems to be with so much of biology, when scientists work with nature’s designs some fascinating engineering can be done. Just as the design of a jet aircraft can be adjusted and augmented to meet a new performance requirement, so too proteins can be adapted to meet desired properties. And just as engines or other components can sometimes be swapped between aircraft, so too proteins are marvelously modular, allowing for new designs to be created by mixing and matching.

Unfortunately evolutionists routinely conflate such design engineering with evolutionary possibilities. Proteins are adaptable, so can’t they gradually evolve? Proteins are module, so can’t they just swap designs when gradualism fails? The science contradicts such conclusions, but evolutionists are driven more by their theory than by the data. Here are two examples.

An example research paper

In this research paper, evolutionists investigated how proteins might have evolved. They attempted to demonstrate the evolution of a virus—a molecular machine consisting of several proteins—in the laboratory. To simplify the problem they started with all but a small part of the virus intact. They randomized the amino acid sequence of one part of one of the viral proteins, and they repeatedly evolved that randomized segment in hopes of reconstructing the entire virus.

What they discovered was that the evolutionary process could produce only tiny levels of functionality (in this case the virus’ ability to infect a host). Their evolved sequences showed no similarity to the native sequence which is supposed to have evolved. And the best virus they could produce, even with the vast majority of the virus already intact, was several orders of magnitude weaker than nature’s virus.

The reason their evolutionary process failed was that the search for better amino acid sequences, that would improve the virus’ ability to infect the host, became too difficult. A possible evolutionary explanation for these disappointing results is that in such a limited laboratory study, the evolutionists were simply unable to reproduce what the vast resources of nature could produce. Perhaps in the course of time evolution could evolve what the evolutionists could not do in the laboratory.

But the results refuted even this fall back explanation. In fact, the evolutionists would not merely need an expanded study with more time in the laboratory, they would need more time than evolution ever had—many times over. The number of experiments they would need to conduct in order to have any hope of evolving a virus that rivals nature’s version is difficult to compute. But it is at least 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros).

And yet, there it is. This relatively short sequence of amino acids exists as part of of the virus, with its fantastically high infection capabilities. And of course this is not merely a problem for a part of one protein, in one virus. It is a problem for all life, for proteins are crucial molecular machines throughout biology.

But not surprisingly the evolutionists interpreted their results according to their theory. The majority of the paper presents the detailed scientific results. There is no misinterpretation or exaggeration, until that is, the discussion of the implications for evolution. The evolutionists write:

Such a huge search is impractical and implies that evolution of the wild-type phage must have involved not only random substitutions but also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination.

Homologous recombination? It would be difficult to imagine a more unlikely explanation. Homologous recombination is a complex genetic mechanism assisted by finely-tuned proteins. It is circular to recruit such a mechanism for the initial evolution of proteins—for no such mechanism is likely to have existed. And that is putting it mildly.

And even if homologous recombination could somehow have been in play, it wouldn’t help anyway. For while this is a clever mechanism for the swapping of nature’s protein modules, it does not help when used with sequences that are nowhere close to solving the problem. Jumping from one ocean wave to another doesn’t improve the odds in finding the astronomical, one-in-10^70, longshot.

The evolutionists found that it is impossible for evolution’s gradual search to solve the problem, even for the single module they were experimenting with (and all the other modules in the virus already at their native sequences). But if repeated attempts by evolution are going to fail, then the mixing and matching of those errant attempts will not help either. They merely represent another blind attempt. Unfortunately, it is unscientific conclusions such as these that inform the next level up in the apologetics hierarchy.

An example survey paper

This survey paper is entitled “Exploring protein fitness landscapes by directed evolution.” The paper discusses both the engineering problem of creating new proteins and its implications for how proteins evolved in the first place. For the most part this survey paper is a helpful and accurate summary of the relevant scientific findings at the time. The enormous complexity of the problem, and even the challenges for evolution are clearly stated. Here are several examples from the paper:

Notwithstanding significant advances, a molecular-level understanding of why one protein performs a certain task better than another remains elusive. This state of affairs is perhaps not surprising when we remember that a protein often undergoes conformational changes during function and exists as a dynamic ensemble of conformers that are only slightly more stable than their unfolded and nonfunctional states and that might themselves be functionally diverse. Mutations far from active sites can influence protein function. Engineering enzymatic activity is particularly difficult, because very small changes in structure or chemical properties can have very significant effects on catalysis. Thus predicting the amino acid sequence, or changes to an amino acid sequence, that would generate a specific behavior remains a challenge, particularly for applications requiring high performance (such as an industrial enzyme or a therapeutic protein). Unfortunately, where function is concerned, details matter, and we just don't understand the details. …

Although the distance between any two sequences is small (that is, equals the number of mutations required to interconvert them and is therefore ≤ L), this high-dimensional space contains an incomprehensibly large number of possible proteins. For even a small protein of 100 amino acids there are 20^100 (~10^130) possible sequences, or more than the number of atoms in the universe. Searching in this space for billions of years for solutions to survival, nature has explored only an infinitesimal fraction of the possible proteins. …

The vast size of sequence space makes it impossible to characterize (or even model) more than a minute fraction of this fitness surface. Despite this, several important features have emerged from accumulated experimental studies. The first is the low overall density of functional sequences: the vast majority do not code for any functional protein, much less the desired protein. …

Because most mutations are deleterious, the probability that a variant retains its fold and function declines exponentially with the number of random substitutions, and random jumps in sequence space uncover mostly inactive proteins. Thus new functions are extremely difficult to obtain without altering some aspect of the search. One approach is to create a new starting point, a parent protein with at least some minimal function, and improve that by directed evolution. …

An approach to making multiple mutations that is used extensively in nature is recombination. Naturally-occurring homologous proteins can be recombined to create genetic diversity within protein sequence libraries. …

Furthermore, natural evolution works on a different fitness landscape, and it is unclear how the protein fitness assayed during directed evolution is related to the organismal fitness that natural evolution optimizes.

These passages discuss some of the difficulties in using protein engineering as evidence for evolution, and some of the contradictory evidence protein engineering has produced. Unfortunately, none of this is interpreted outside of the evolutionary framework, and in fact the paper goes well beyond, and against, the scientific data in elaborating the evolutionary narrative:

Millions of years of life's struggle for survival in different environments have led proteins to provide diverse, creative and efficient solutions to a wide range of problems, from extracting energy from the environment to repairing and replicating their own code. …

Evolution, however, had no difficulty generating these impressive molecules. …

Evolution is unique because it works at all scales, from molecules to ecosystems — no other engineering design algorithm can make that claim. A simple algorithm of mutation and artificial selection has proved effective for everything from the selective breeding of plants and animals to discovering self-replicating nucleic acid sequences. …

Among the large number of mutational trajectories between a starting point and a solution, smooth uphill paths can often be found. …

Despite the vast size of sequence space and the complex nature of protein function, the Darwinian algorithm of mutation and selection provides a powerful method to generate proteins with altered functions.

This is the apologetics message of the paper that informs the popular literature. Whereas the research paper’s undefendable, non scientific statements were limited, now in the survey paper they frame the narrative from beginning to end. Evolution, one way or another, must have happened, so the evidence must support it. There can be no contradictory evidence.

To make this story sound scientific, the paper equivocates on evolution. It conflates the protein engineering findings that nature’s proteins can adapt with the evolutionary narrative:

Despite their complexity and finely-tuned nature, proteins are remarkably evolvable: they can adapt under the pressure of selection, changing behavior, function and even fold. …

Biological components and systems have shown a remarkable ability to adapt under the pressure of artificial selection, an evolvability that very likely reflects their own history of natural selection. …

Even the earliest directed evolution experiments noted how rapidly proteins could adapt to new selective pressures, indicating the ready availability of smooth uphill paths in the fitness landscapes. …

This simple uphill walk on a fitness landscape in sequence space works because proteins are wonderfully evolvable and can adapt to new conditions or even take on new functions with only a few mutations.

Proteins are remarkably evolvable along smooth uphill paths because, after all, their adaptation under artificial selection reflects their own history of natural selection? Of course the adaptation of native proteins proves no such thing. It is yet another rehearsing of Darwin’s flawed logic that animal husbandry and breeding provide a peek into the mechanisms of change that, by the way, created all of biology. Religion drives science and it matters.

New Genes: Putting the Theory Before the Evidence

Imagine that you have been falsely accused of a crime. The police department has identified you as the prime suspect and they are busy gathering as much evidence against you as possible. They have constructed a theory of your motivations and actions, and as they gather the evidence they interpret it according to their theory. Their process of working from a preconceived notion of your guilt leads the police investigators to explain even ambiguous or contradictory evidence in ways that support their theory. And so it is the theory that is informing the evidence, rather than the evidence informing the theory. As crazy as it sounds, this approach is standard for evolutionists and here are three recent examples dealing with protein evolution.

Example 1: Evolving a virus

In this study evolutionists investigated how proteins might have evolved. They attempted to demonstrate the evolution of a virus—a molecular machine consisting of several proteins—in the laboratory. To simplify the problem they started with all but a small part of the virus intact. They randomized the amino acid sequence of one part of one of the viral proteins, and they repeatedly evolved that randomized segment in hopes of reconstructing the entire virus.

What they discovered was that the evolutionary process could produce only tiny improvements to the virus’ ability to infect a host. Their evolved sequences showed no similarity to the native sequence which is supposed to have evolved. And the best virus they could produce, even with the vast majority of the virus already intact, was several orders of magnitude weaker than nature’s virus.

The reason their evolutionary process failed was that the search for better amino acid sequences, that would improve the virus’ ability to infect the host, became too difficult. A possible evolutionary explanation for these disappointing results is that in such a limited laboratory study, the evolutionists were simply unable to reproduce what the vast resources of nature could produce. Perhaps in the course of time evolution could evolve what the evolutionists could not do in the laboratory.

But the results refuted even this fall back explanation. In fact, the evolutionists would not merely need an expanded study with more time in the laboratory, they would need more time than evolution ever had—many times over. The number of experiments they would need to conduct in order to have any hope of evolving a virus that rivals nature’s version is difficult to compute. But it is at least 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros).

And yet, there it is. This relatively short sequence of amino acids exists as part of of the virus, with its fantastically high infection capabilities. And of course this is not merely a problem for a part of one protein, in one virus. It is a problem for all life, for proteins are crucial molecular machines throughout biology.

Did the evolutionists conclude that proteins did not evolve? Did they suggest their findings are a problem for evolution? Did they even do so little as discuss the possibility that this one particular protein they studied may not have evolved?

No. There is not even a hint from the evolutionists there is a problem. In fact, the results are, in typical fashion, interpreted according to evolution. As usual, the evolutionists simply explained that evolution must have, somehow, solved the problem:

Such a huge search is impractical and implies that evolution of the wild-type phage must have involved not only random substitutions but also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination.

But other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination, do not help. Homologous recombination, or any other mechanism that evolutionists can imagine, does not provide some ingenious end around the problem. Evolution cannot somehow brilliantly find the one in 10^70 long shot. The evolutionists rosy report is not data-driven, but theory-driven.

Example 2: Evolving a simple function

In this study evolutionists attempted to evolve a protein that binds to a simple, common chemical group. This function is so simple even random polypeptides sometimes have slight binding affinities. Using their laboratory process the evolutionists were able to evolve minor improvements to a random polypeptide’s binding affinity. But these small binding levels are hardly detectable. So not only is the function trivial (in order to improve fitness a protein needs to do more than merely bind to a chemical), but the levels observed are likely too small to make a difference anyway.

As with Example 1 the evolved amino acid sequences showed no similarity to nature’s sequences and when the evolutionists tried using a larger number of trials there was no sign of improved results.

Despite these feeble results the evolutionists made remarkable conclusions:

The ease of the functional development within a small sequence variety implies that enzyme evolution is prompted even within a small population of random polypeptides. … These results mark the implementation of Darwinian evolution in the system.

There is no comparison between the evolution of an enzyme and their polypeptides with minor binding affinities. And there certainly was no Darwinian evolution demonstrated in their results, for such evolution requires tangible fitness improvements which can be selected. It was good research work, but the interpretation was according to evolution.

Example 3: New genes

This example deals with new genes. When a gene is found in a large number of species, evolutionists assume it came from the common ancestor of those species, which would date far back into evolutionary history. But when a gene is found in only one or a few species, evolutionists must conclude it arose in the common ancestor of only those few species, and therefore more recently.

But how can a new gene arise so quickly? Genes that code for proteins are difficult to evolve in any case (see here and here), but the problem is accentuated when the time frame is shortened.

How a gene could have evolved is not the only problem with new genes. Such new genes, however they were supposed to have evolved, were expected to be less important. But in this study evolutionists noticed this wasn’t so.

The evolutionists compared what they assume to be new and old genes, and found no statistical difference in the importance of their functions. Knockout a new gene, and you are just as likely to kill the organism as when you knockout an old gene. In fact, the proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every assumed evolutionary age group they examined.

But once again, evolutionists do not hesitate in fitting awkward results into their framework. “These data,” the evolutionists deftly concluded, “suggest that new genes frequently and rapidly evolve essential functions and participate in development.”

In fact, outside of evolutionary theory, there is no reason to think these genes are any newer than other genes. And inside of evolutionary theory there is no scientific explanation of how proteins arise in the first place. Evolutionists are hardly in a position to assert that these data, or any other data for that matter, suggest new genes frequently and rapidly evolve, period. With little more than a bare assertion the evolutionists convert yet another unexpected finding into an evolutionary proclamation.

Evolutionists are bound to the preconceived notion that evolution must be a fact. It drives their thinking in spite of the scientific evidence, and they interpret any and all evidence in this light. It may sound crazy, but it is the theory that informs the evidence, rather than the evidence that informs the theory.

Protein Evolution: A Problem That Defies Description

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is scientifically unlikely. The idea that all of biology just happened to arise spontaneously over long time periods (yes, that is what the theory of evolution says) is not motivated by the scientific evidence. This can be seen at all levels of biology including, more prominently in recent years, at the molecular level. A good example of this is the scientific evidence on proteins, and what it says about evolution.

It is not that the scientific evidence reveals proteins to be particularly unlikely on evolution. Proteins are not known to be any less likely to have evolved than, say, DNA repair mechanisms, cellular signal transduction, the electron transport chain, neurons, cardiovascular systems, mice or blue whales. But proteins are a bit more amenable to analysis. As mysterious and difficult as proteins are, molecular biology can at least provide some data on their supposed evolution. In the digital molecular world experiments can show how profoundly evolutionary expectations have failed, and how much more faith required to continue with the theory.

One way to understand how unlikely is protein evolution is in their sensitivity to change. Proteins generally do not tolerate much change to their design. Their designs can vary, but not much. In the vast universe of all possible protein designs, they are not vast oceans but more like the tiny holes in a golf course. This evidence indicates the evolutionary process is unlikely to find them.

Another way to understand protein evolution is to start at the beginning rather than the end. That is, rather than analyzing nature’s proteins, one can start with a non functional, random chain of amino acids to see how easily it can migrate toward functional proteins via evolution’s processes of natural selection or drift. These experiments confirm that the evolution of a protein is scientifically unlikely.

Such experiments reveal what seemed rather obvious from biochemistry: evolutionary schemes are not likely to find the highly complex protein designs we find in nature. The results of such experiments fall short of anything close to the real thing. The resulting sequences of amino acids look nothing like what we find in nature, and the resulting functions are orders of magnitude short of what real proteins do.

In fact, such experiments typically need all kind of advantages to show much progress. For instance, some experiments only attempt to evolve a part of a protein, while the rest of the protein is already at nature’s design at the beginning of the experiment. And some experiments apply artificial selection on low levels of trivial functions which otherwise would not improve fitness at the organismal level.

But even with these advantages the results demonstrate the failure of evolutionary expectations. Unfortunately, evolutionists are less than forthright in their representation of what science is telling us. For example, here is how one journal paper reported its results:

By extrapolation, we estimated that adaptive walking requires a library size of 10^70 [a one followed by 70 zeros] with 35 substitutions to reach comparable fitness. Such a huge search is impractical and implies that evolution of the wild-type phage must have involved not only random substitutions but also other mechanisms, such as homologous recombination.

Here the evolutionists must admit the obvious, that the envisioned protein evolution via gradual changes and natural selection does not work. In fact it is ridiculously unrealistic. But they then deny the gravity of the problem. With nothing but speculation they resolve their astronomical long shot with “other mechanisms” such as homologous recombination.

It is one of the great tragedies of our time that most people lack the scientific training to appreciate the incredible absurdity of evolutionary thought. The suggestion that homologous recombination could resolve this astronomical long shot is the height of absurdity. This is not hyperbole.

What cannot be solved with a library size of 10^70 is not magically going to be resolved with homologous recombination. And this is not to mention that homologous recombination would not have even existed when proteins first evolved. Indeed, an army of specialized proteins is required before homologous recombination is even possible. If homologous recombination was the key to evolving proteins, then aircraft carriers were the key to winning the battle of Trafalgar.

Indeed, it is a difficult task to describe the immense magnitude of this evolutionary folly. Here’s my attempt: It would be like throwing a paper airplane from the top of a skyscraper and explaining that it will make a hole-in-one at a golf course on the other side of town. On second thought, that still does not do the job—the evolutionary folly is far greater than this.