Karl Giberson: Broken Genes Prove Evolution

In yesterday’s CNN blog evolutionist Karl Giberson bemoans the influence of religious thinking in beliefs about origins and then, in evolutionary typical fashion, hypocritically mandates evolution’s own religious beliefs.

when it comes to the truth of evolution, many Christians feel compelled to look the other way … While Genesis contains wonderful insights into the relationship between God and the creation, it simply does not contain scientific ideas about the origin of the universe, the age of the earth or the development of life.

So religious beliefs should not inform our views on origins, got it.

And all life forms are related to each other though evolution. These are important truths that science has discovered through careful research.

Scientific research has revealed on such thing. Not even close.

Anyone who values truth must take these ideas seriously, for they have been established as true beyond any reasonable doubt.

This is the universal claim of evolutionists, but it has never been even remotely demonstrated scientifically.

There is much evidence for evolution.

There is much evidence for geocentrism.

The most compelling comes from the study of genes, especially now that the Human Genome Project has been completed and the genomes of many other species being constantly mapped.

In particular, humans share an unfortunate “broken gene” with many other primates, including chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. This gene, which works fine in most mammals, enables the production of Vitamin C. Species with broken versions of the gene can’t make Vitamin C and must get it from foods like oranges and lemons.

These similar broken genes (the so-called pseudogenes) are found with broken parts that do not fit the expected evolutionary pattern. In these cases even evolutionists admit that the breaks are not due to common descent. It is therefore the fallacy of special pleading to claim that when such breaks fit the expected evolutionary pattern they serve as proof texts for evolution.

Of course none of this matters because the argument was never scientific to begin with.

Thousands of hapless sailors died painful deaths scurvy during the age of exploration because their “Vitamin C” gene was broken.

How can different species have identical broken genes? The only reasonable explanation is that they inherited it from a common ancestor.

The only reasonable explanation is common descent? It is the umpteenth time evolutionists have proclaimed their metaphysics in the guise of science. And it is the umpteenth time they have done this right after insisting religion must have nothing to do with origins science. You can read more about this here, here, here, here and here. Simply put, this claim that the only reasonable explanation for pseudogenes is common descent does not come from science—it can’t.

Such evidence proves common ancestry with a level of certainty comparable to the evidence that the earth goes around the sun.

True, given the evolutionist’s religious mandates, evolution is highly certain. But from a scientific perspective the idea has substantial problems.

This is but one of many, many evidences that support the truth of evolution

True, evolution’s religious view converts a great many unlikely evidences into proof texts. Religion drives science, and it matters.

Evolutionists: Skepticism is a Science Stopper

It began practically as soon as Origin of Species was published. In the second half of the nineteenth century and even more so in the twentieth century, questioning evolution was cast as anti science. From an evolutionary perspective this makes sense. If evolution is an obvious and undeniable scientific fact, then is not skepticism tantamount to an attack on science itself? But once again, evolution’s criticism is more of a reflection of evolution itself.

Not long after Darwin introduced evolution to the world his friend and advocate Thomas H. Huxley declared that:

I really believe that the alternative is either Darwinism or nothing, for I do not know of any rational conception or theory of the organic universe which has any scientific position at all beside Mr. Darwin’s.

Aside from Darwinism there was no legitimate scientific position. The die was cast and later apologists would return to this formulation. Later in the century University of California professor Joseph Le Conte wrote that to doubt purely natural causation is to “doubt the validity of reason.” It was, in effect, a marginalization of skepticism.

Such marginalization has become common today. Richard Lewontin writes that “To deny evolution is to deny physics, chemistry, and astronomy, as well as biology.” Douglas Futuyma writes that the challenge to evolution touches us all, for “in short, all the sciences are under attack.” Sean Carroll (the geneticist) writes:

It is absolutely astonishing and often infuriating that some take it so far as to deny the immense foundation of evidence and to slander all the human achievement that foundation represents.

These are but a few examples of evolutionist’s assault on any and all skepticism. Not surprisingly this template has spread far and wide. Journalists rarely allow skepticism of evolution to reflect genuine scientific issues. Chris Matthews, for instance, has explained that such skeptics “don’t accept the scientific method.”

In fact this sentiment is now a principle of our constitutional jurisprudence. In the remarkable Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District legal decision, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones reasoned that if an explanation is not based on natural causes then it simply is not science. Indeed, Jones ruled that “attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a ‘science stopper.’”

Where is the science stopper?

According to evolutionists, skepticism is anti science. But why is this so? In fact it is evolution that, in spite of the empirical evidence, claims life just happened to arise in a puddle somewhere, and then that it proliferated into millions of different species with their fantastic designs. Not surprisingly evolutionists cannot explain exactly how this occurred. All they have is vague speculations and even those consistently are found to be at odds with the evidence. And yet, in spite of all this evolutionists insist that their idea is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Does this sound much like science?

To make matters worse, evolutionists blackball anyone expressing dissent from their dogma. Evolutionists literally maintain lists of names, in order to ensure that there are no promising young scientists who advance in the sciences while harboring doubt about the dogma. Such a scientist must not be given a passing grade or good letter of recommendation or acceptance into graduate school or doctorate degree or post doctorate appointment or faculty interview or tenure or funding. Whatever level such a scientist is at, evolutionists will make every attempt to terminate their career and smear their good name. All this for skepticism of evolution’s unscientific claims. Does this sound much like science?

Worse yet evolutionists, while rigidly mandating strictly naturalistic explanations, maintain completeness and realism. Explanations must be strictly naturalistic, no topic is off limits, and the evolutionary explanations are assumed to represent, at least approximately, reality. But of course this set of assumptions means that all of reality must be naturalistic. How can evolutionists know this to be true? Does this sound much like science?

Even worse, this evolutionary dogma has produced an environment where naturalism itself is now unfalsifiable. Both their philosophy, as well as their imposed social and funding constraints, has resulted in a closed system in which evolutionists reject, out of hand, legitimate intellectual inquiry. Does this sound much like science?

Finally, evolutionists resort to the ultimate protectionist device. They point the finger at skepticism, branding it as anti science. While promoting their theologically-motivated idea that is contradictory to the empirical evidence, they insist their unfalsifiable idea is an undeniable fact, they blackball skepticism and they enforce a non scientific philosophy—all of this while hypocritically castigating any skepticism as a science stopper. Religion drives science and it matters.

Is Spontaneous Formation a Fact?

I recently explained how evolutionists are astonished that the public does not buy their idea that the universe and everything in it—including all of biology—must have spontaneously arisen on its own. I further explained they are in denial of their own claims:

This in spite of the enormous scientific challenges to this Epicurean mythology. It is incredible that evolutionists insist that spontaneous formation is a fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists resist this plain description of their theory, but in doing so they are their own judge. For this is precisely what their theory claims. Swerving atoms, no matter how much they are adorned with Darwinian rhetoric, are not likely to create biosonar, consciousness and the entire cosmos.

My point was quickly confirmed when an evolutionist professor responded “Why do you keep conflating evolution with ‘the universe must have arisen spontaneously on its own’ - whatever that is supposed to mean?”

Whatever that is supposed to mean? It means exactly what evolutionists have been claiming for centuries. In the eighteenth century philosophers and scientists such as Gottfried Leibniz, Immanuel Kant and Pierre Laplace insisted that the cosmos (focused primarily on the solar system at that time) must have arisen spontaneously, via natural laws and processes.

And the mandate was soon applied to the origin of life as well. Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, and its subsequent variations, all say that life arose from non life, and then proliferated madly into millions and millions of species, on its own. It was a spontaneous process, according to evolutionists.

It is difficult to speak of evolution in measured terms. For scientifically this is, frankly, rather silly. But to make matters worse, evolutionists insist that their idea is a fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. And when you repeat their rather amazing claim back to them, evolutionists erroneously claim you are misrepresenting them. How could that be, we are simply repeating their own claims. But their denial is understandable given their dubious position. So why not just give it up?

Is Evolution Criticism Anti Science?

There is no question that science has made tremendous progress over the centuries, but what exactly does that tell us about science? For some, science’s seemingly inexorable march of progress means that scientific theories are either true or headed in that direction. Scientific ideas, particularly if they are successful, must be revealing something about how the world works. Perhaps they are not exactly correct, but future research will iron out the rough spots. Sure science has had plenty of failed upstarts, but the scientific method provides a feedback loop that rapidly and ruthlessly eliminates those ideas that don’t match up to reality. Scientific theories that are mature, on the other hand, have endured this testing and are well on their way to taking their place as an accurate description of nature. This assessment of science, or at least portions of it, are sometimes referred to as scientific realism, for science is viewed as describing reality. Today, scientific realism plays an important role in evolutionary apologetics but the argument is problematic.

If you question evolution you will, at some point, be told that you are opposing science. Anyone who doubts such a mature, well-established theory must be anti science, whether he knows it or not. Has not the success of science proven the naturalistic approach? As Sean Carroll (the cosmologist, not the geneticist) explains:

Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement.

But such raw realism relies on a whiggish understanding of the history of science. Scientific progress, while undeniable, has been accompanied by massive failure. And how to distinguish between the two is not always obvious. Theories that are thought to represent reality often turn out to be miserable failures. And very successful scientific theories are routinely later taken to be a false representation of reality. They were not slightly modified but dropped altogether. But in their day such theories were held with great confidence.

And so it is not terribly surprising that, as a recent paper explains, most published research findings are false. Like the weather forecast, what science tells us is often not true:

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies to the most modern molecular research. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.

None of this means that science does not progress, but science’s progress is not straightforward. It is not as though science smoothly and efficiently gains knowledge of the natural world, like the turning of a Baconian crank. And while careful formulations of realism are possible, there is little basis for the evolutionist’s marshalling of it as an apologetic for naturalism. What is amazing is how often realism is so naively employed. As Larry Laudan once commented:

It is little short of remarkable that realists would imagine that their critics would find the argument compelling. As I have shown elsewhere, ever since antiquity critics of epistemic realism have based their scepticism upon a deep-rooted conviction that the fallacy of affirming the consequent is indeed fallacious. …

No proponent of realism has sought to show that realism satisfies those stringent empirical demands which the realist himself minimally insists on when appraising scientific theories. The latter-day realist often calls realism a “scientific” or “well-tested” hypothesis, but seems curiously reluctant to subject it to those controls which he otherwise takes to be a sine qua non for empirical well-foundedness.

There simply is no basis for the evolutionist’s common retort that criticism of his theory is anti science. In fact, this seems to be more of a protectionist ploy than a genuine defense of truth. Perhaps it is no coincidence that such a ploy is used to defend the empirically problematic evolutionary claim that the universe, and everything in it, spontaneously arose on its own.

Evolutionists: The People do Not Even Believe Evolution is Real!

In their review of the new edited volume Evolution Since Darwin: The First 150 Years, evolutionists Joel Kingsolver and David Pfennig wonder why the new volume does not take up the question of why evolution remains controversial at a societal level. After all, “the majority of the public do not even believe it is real!” Evolutionists are astonished. The public does not buy their idea that the universe and everything in it—including all of biology—must have spontaneously arisen on its own. This in spite of the enormous scientific challenges to this Epicurean mythology. It is incredible that evolutionists insist that spontaneous formation is a fact, beyond all reasonable doubt. Evolutionists resist this plain description of their theory, but in doing so they are their own judge. For this is precisely what their theory claims. Swerving atoms, no matter how much they are adorned with Darwinian rhetoric, are not likely to create biosonar, consciousness and the entire cosmos. Once again, the people are ahead of the pundits.

Sean Carroll: Does the Universe Need God?

In his forthcoming chapter, Does the Universe Need God?, Sean Carroll (the physicist, not the geneticist) argues that while invoking god as an explanation for natural phenomena was once reasonable, now we can do much better. It is an example of the extent to which otherwise very smart people resort to special pleading to get the right answer.

From Aristotelianism to Newtonian physics, relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory, cosmologists have produced ever more accurate and plausible explanations for the origin and operation of the universe. For Carroll this march of progress seems inexorable. Are we not headed for a completely naturalistic explanation of the world?

Consider, for example, the multiverse idea where instead of a single universe, there are a great many universes. This multiverse allows evolutionists to overcome the low probabilities of this world, such as the fine-tuning of nature and the evolution of life. Astronomically unlikely events don’t matter if you have an astronomical number of chances. And while the multiverse hypothesis is often criticized as a just-so story, in fact it arises from what seem to be a reasonable set of hypothetical natural laws. The inexorable march of progress continues and Carroll concludes:

Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement.

Carroll’s thesis, it would seem, is a robust appeal to the successes of empirical science. From a scientific perspective, the world just happened, or so it appears. Any appeals to anything more than natural law is just an argument from ignorance.

But there are some flies in this Leibnizian ointment. For instance, what if there is no multiverse? For this Carroll falls back on the hypothesis that life is extremely robust. Yes, life seems to need this finely-tuned world, but who knows what other types of life there are. Carroll laments that not nearly enough credence is given to this option. Perhaps that is because it is so weak. It is not merely an argument from ignorance, it goes against what science is telling us. Yes, we certainly can’t make any firm conclusions, but the idea that life is extremely robust is not what science indicates.

Then there are those aspects of nature that are finely-tuned beyond what life requires. While fine-tuning to the requirements of life can be explained, in principle, as a result of selection in the multiverse (if there is one), what about those extremely fine-tuned parameters.

One such example is the universe’s initial entropy which is way too low. It is one part in a number that is so large it is difficult to describe. Usually with large numbers we use the exponential form. For example, for a one followed by fifty zeros, we write 10^50. But for the universe’s initial entropy, even the exponent is too large. It is, as Carroll writes, “a preposterous number,” and well beyond what is required for life.

For this problem Carroll once again appeals to our ignorance. Yes, it seems strange, but researchers are working on this problem. Perhaps they will succeed in figuring out why life would, in fact, require such an incredible level of fine-tuning.

But this is only Carroll’s warm up argument. He merely needs to show that a naturalistic account is not impossible. The strength of his argument is that god wouldn’t do it this way so, as usual, a naturalistic account is mandated.

If anything, the [excessive] tuning that characterizes the entropy of the universe is a bigger problem for the God hypothesis than for the multiverse. If the point of arranging the universe was to set the stage for the eventual evolution of intelligent life, why all the grandiose excess represented by the needlessly low entropy at early times and the universe’s hundred billion galaxies? We might wonder whether those other galaxies are spandrels – not necessary for life here on Earth, but nevertheless a side effect of the general Big Bang picture, which is the most straightforward way to make the Earth and its biosphere. This turns out not to be true; quantitatively, it’s easy to show that almost all possible histories of the universe that involve Earth as we know it don’t have any other galaxies at all. It’s unclear why God would do so much more fine-tuning of the state of the universe than seems to have been necessary.

So the excessive fine-tuning renders the multiverse impotent unless we can somehow manage to make life contingent on such a preposterous quantity. But no matter, this is really a problem for the god hypothesis. After all, such grandiose excess is capricious. If god were to create the world, he would do it to mimic selection. Evolutionists usually argue that god would not mimic selection, but when the need arises god’s role can always be reversed.

Finally there is the problem of why there is anything. If science is ultimately to provide “a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe,” as Carroll confidently expects, then how will it explain why there is anything? Does not a beginning, according to Kalam, necessitate a cause? The answer, for Carroll, is simply “no.” Some things we simply need to understand as brute facts:

It can be difficult to respond to this kind of argument. Not because the arguments are especially persuasive, but because the ultimate answer to “We need to understand why the universe exists/continues to exist/exhibits regularities/came to be” is essentially “No we don’t.” That is unlikely to be considered a worthwhile comeback to anyone who was persuaded by the need for a meta-explanatory understanding in the first place.

Granted, it is always nice to be able to provide reasons why something is the case. Most scientists, however, suspect that the search for ultimate explanations eventually terminates in some final theory of the world, along with the phrase “and that’s just how it is.”

Here Carroll’s special pleading reaches new heights. Where naturalism can explain the world, it serves as evidence for a materialistic understanding of ultimate reality. And where naturalism is inadequate, well so what. That doesn’t matter.

Incredible.

The fact that “most scientists” suspect ultimate explanations will never really be ultimate does not resolve the problem; rather, it is an acknowledgment of the problem. It is simply a reflection of their intuition of the limits of science.

For evolutionists the world spontaneously arose all by itself. No amount of evidence will change that conclusion, because the conclusion is theologically mandated. Without an evolutionary account we would have to conclude that god created the world. And we can do much better than that.

Francisco Ayala: I Don’t Answer Questions on My Personal Beliefs

Here is an interview with evolutionist Francisco Ayala where he does not give answers about his personal beliefs.

You won [a Templeton prize] for arguing there is no contradiction between science and religion. Many disagree.

They are two windows through which we look at the world. Religion deals with our relationship with our creator, with each other, the meaning and purpose of life, and moral values; science deals with the make-up of matter, expansion of galaxies, evolution of organisms. They deal with different ways of knowing. I feel that science is compatible with religious faith in a personal, omnipotent and benevolent God.

This view that science and religion address different types of problems is known as the compartmentalization model. It ignores the vast and substantial body of theological claims made by scientists, and material claims made by religions.

Why do you say creationism is bad religion?

Creationism and intelligent design are not compatible with religion because they imply the designer is a bad designer, allowing cruelty and misery. Evolution explains these as a result of natural processes, in the same way we explain earthquakes, tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. We don’t have to attribute them to an action of God.

So god does not create calamity.

Do you believe in God?            

I don’t answer questions on my personal beliefs.

The evolutionist thinks his theodicy is not a personal belief. After all, isn’t it obvious that god would not create calamity? It reminds me of what Edwin Burtt wrote about positivism:

[T]he lesson is that even the attempt to escape metaphysics is no sooner put in the form of a proposition than it is seen to involve highly significant metaphysical postulates.

For this reason there is an exceedingly subtle and insidious danger in positivism. If you cannot avoid metaphysics, what kind of metaphysics are you likely to cherish when you sturdily suppose yourself to be free from the abomination? Of course it goes without saying that in this case your metaphysics will be held uncritically because it is unconscious; moreover, it will be passed on to others far more readily than your other notions inasmuch as it will be propagated by insinuation rather than by direct argument. That a serious student of Newton fails to see that his master had a most important metaphysic, is an exceedingly interesting testimony to the pervading influence, throughout modern thought, of the Newtonian first philosophy.

Now the history of mind reveals pretty clearly that the thinker who decries metaphysics will actually hold metaphysical notions of three main types. For one thing, he will share the ideas of his age on ultimate questions, so far as such ideas do not run counter to his interests or awaken his criticism. No one has yet appeared in human history, not even the most profoundly critical intellect, in whom no important idola theatri can be detected, but the metaphysician will at least be superior to his opponent in this respect, in that he will be constantly on his guard against the surreptitious entrance and unquestioned influence of such notions. In the second place, if he be a man engaged in any important inquiry, he must have a method, and he will be under a strong and constant temptation to make a metaphysics out of his method, that is, to suppose the universe ultimately of such a sort that his method must be appropriate and successful. Some of the consequences of succumbing to such a temptation have been abundantly evident in our discussion of the work of Kepler, Galileo, and Descartes. Finally since human nature demands metaphysics for its full intellectual satisfaction, no great mind can wholly avoid playing with ultimate questions, especially where they are powerfully thrust upon it by considerations arising from its positivistic investigations, or by certain vigorous extra-scientific interests, such as religion. But inasmuch as the positivist mind has failed to school itself in careful metaphysical thinking, its ventures at such points will be apt to appear pitiful, inadequate, or even fantastic. [The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, Revised Ed., Doubleday Anchor, 1954, p. 228-9.]

Like a fish that doesn’t know it is in water, those who are most indebted to metaphysics are the least aware.

Arthur Caplan on the Elasticity of Evolution

Years ago, in response to worries that evolution was not falsifiable, an evolutionist assured me the theory was indeed falsifiable. Functionally unconstrained DNA, he explained, should not be conserved in distant species. Such a finding, he assured me, would absolutely refute evolution. Such claims of falsifiability can suffer from two potential problems: they can be too hard, or they can be too easy.

Falsifiability claims can be too hard in the sense that the finding in question is not likely to be discovered. Darwin made this move when he explained that his theory “would absolutely break down” if it could be demonstrated that “any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.” Not surprisingly Darwin concluded that he could find out no such case. What he didn’t tell the reader is that his falsification criteria was impossible.

On the other hand, falsifiability claims can be too easy in the sense that if the finding in question is discovered it can easily be accommodated by adjusting the theory. Evolution is constantly under revision due to the steady stream of unexpected scientific findings. When the evolutionist told me that evolution would absolutely break down if functionally unconstrained DNA was found to be conserved in distant species, I thought it was too hard. Given what we knew at the time, it seemed such a finding was unlikely. But then when it was discovered, the falsification criterion was revealed to be too easy. The discovery of so-called ultra conserved elements (UCEs) certainly was unexpected. As one evolutionist put it, “I about fell off my chair.” But of course, as with all the other unexpected findings, UCEs could do no real damage to evolutionary belief.

The seemingly infinite resiliency and elasticity of evolution is an indicator that there is more than mere science at play. Commentators have noticed this peculiar property of evolution for many years now. Philosopher Arthur Caplan once summarized these concerns as follows:

1. Evolution is rarely sullied by any specific predictions or retrodictions.

2. Evolution seems to possess a disquieting amount of elasticity. Anything and everything in the empirical biological world seems to be compatible with evolutionary explanations. Refuting evidence or crucial experiments that could realistically jeopardize an evolutionary account seem extremely few and far between.

3. Evolutionists seem willing to assume and postulate mechanisms, variables and conditions almost willy-nilly in their attempts to explain evolutionary changes. In evolutionary explanations the theorist simply assumes everything he needs to make the explanation work.

4. Evolution does not measure up to theories from other domains of scientific inquiry. Evolution is significantly poorer in its capacity for empirical refutation, falsifiability and testability.

Caplan noted that philosophers such as Michael Ruse had attempted to defend evolution against such charges. Caplan was not impressed with such attempts and concluded that perhaps we need to go easy on how we criticize theories such as evolution. Perhaps evolution is a different kind of theory, and needs to be treated as such.

Yes, evolution is a different kind of theory. Evolution is a religious theory. I once debated Ruse, but it was more of a discussion than a debate. I explained the metaphysics of evolution and Ruse explained the metaphysics of evolution. My point was that evolution is metaphysical and therefore a different kind of theory. Ruse point was that evolution is metaphysical and therefore true. He made the powerful point that without evolution we would be left with the foolish idea that god made this gritty and evil world.

There is no escaping the religion of evolution. Without it atheists would have to face the specter there is a God. And theists would have to face the specter there is the wrong kind of God. Better to believe the world spontaneously arose all by itself. Religion drives science, and it matters.

The Woodpecker Inspires High-G Engineering Designs

Recently research has shown the risk of concussion to football players. Even at the high school level helmet-to-helmet collisions can produce acceleration levels approaching 100 g's. Amazingly, woodpeckers can experience head collisions of 1200 g's, and at more than 20 times per second, as they peck at trees. New research is uncovering how the woodpecker manages to sustain such shocks and nature's design is inspiring a range of improvements to engineered systems.

The new research has found that woodpeckers have a shock absorber system that consists of four components.The woodpecker has an elastic beak that helps reduce the shock, a soft structure underlying the tongue, spongy bone in its skull, and a vibration-suppressing interaction between the skull and spinal fluid.

Discovering this system is only the first step. Researchers are now investigating how to take advantage of this design. In one experiment the woodpecker-inspired design was used to protect microelectronic circuitry. The entire system was fitted inside a bullet and the microelectronic were protected in impacts of up to an amazing 60,000 g's.

This technology has potential applications in airborne flight data recorders (which can withstand shocks of 1000 g's), automobiles and spacecraft. As one engineer observed:

This study is a fascinating example of how nature develops highly advanced structures in combination to solve what at first seems to be an impossible challenge. It may inform our thinking on regenerative dampers for vehicles, redirecting the energy into a form more easily recoverable than dumping it to heat. Ultimately, we need to learn from the woodpecker to recover energy and not give the driver a headache.

And how do evolutionists explain the development of such "highly advanced structures in combination"? They say that random biological variation, such as mutations, just happened to produce this system. They say that fortunately, there just happened to be a long series of gradual improvements leading to the final design. They don't know what those intermediate designs were, and there must have been many, but they are sure they exist. Somehow, amazing designs over and over just happen to be in a long series of useful, though unknown, intermediates.

Did the Seabird Evolve Head Feathers as Sensory Device?

New research shows that without their head feathers seabirds such as Aethia cristatella can’t find their way through tight spaces as well:

Crested and whiskered auklets nest in hollows on rocky islands in the remote northern Pacific Ocean. To see if their elaborate headdresses helped the birds make their way through the rocks to their nests at night, Jones and Seneviratne went to the Aleutian Islands, captured wild birds and put them in a darkened maze – but first they taped down some birds' decorative feathers.

Infrared camera recordings showed that whiskered auklets (Aethia pygmaea) bumped their heads nearly three times more often if their long head feathers were taped down. Crested auklets (A. cristatella), suffered similarly with their crests taped down, but adding an artificial crest to the naturally unadorned least auklet (A. pusilla) – which also nests on the islands but in more open areas – didn't help these birds avoid bumps. Moreover, Sereviratne says, "birds with longer crests had greater difficulty in navigating inside the maze" when their crests were taped down.

The evolutionary origin of the birds' elaborate head feathers supports the idea that their first job was sensing, says Seneviratne. He adds that the auklets' crests evolved from filoplumes, long hair- or thread-like feathers that lack normal feather structures and are attached to pressure-sensitive cells so they can detect touch. In many birds these feathers are hidden by larger contour or wing feathers, but in the auklets they stick out proudly where they can detect obstacles.

The auklet’s head feathers clearly are not just for looks. But evolutionary theory was not needed to make this discovery, nor does it help in explaining the feathers, or the cellular pressure-sensing mechanisms. In fact, beyond empty speculation evolution has no explanation for how such mechanisms could have arisen on their own. It is a typical example of how evolution is a gratuitous explanation, adding nothing but a “multiplied entity” as Occam put it. We may as well say, with the Aristotelians, that fire is hot because it has the quality of heat. Not only has evolutionary theory badly failed, it is not particularly helpful in doing science. It simply becomes more and more complex as we learn about the world.

Creation Versus Evolution: The Real Story

Creationist Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, has been disinvited from homeschooling conferences over comments he made about evolutionist Peter Enns. Both Ham and Enns are conference speakers. As conference organizer Brennan Dean wrote:

Our expression of sacrifice and extraordinary kindness towards Ken and AIG has been returned to us and our attendees with Ken publicly attacking our conventions and other speakers. Our Board believes Ken's comments to be unnecessary, ungodly, and mean-spirited statements that are divisive at best and defamatory at worst.

An Answers in Genesis spokesman, however, explained that they were unaware there was a problem and that conference organizers should not have been surprised by Ham’s warnings that evolution compromises God's word.

On the surface this story appears to be about yet another tiff between creationists and evolutionists. The creationists may use it to remind us that scripture must be vigorously defended while the evolutionists may use it to make yet more appeals for nuanced readings of scripture. And those outside the debate undoubtedly will call for unity. But while all these points are perfectly valid, they miss the real story.

Can scripture accommodate evolution?

Evolutionists sometimes ask me if my religious beliefs can accommodate evolution. Do I criticize evolution objectively, they ask, or do I have religious motives? The answer is that my religious beliefs do not accommodate evolution, but not for the suspected reason.

When evolutionists ask this question they are thinking about the material aspects of evolution. Can your religious beliefs accommodate an old earth and species arising via natural processes rather than miraculous intervention? To this I say sure. With thinkers ranging from BB Warfield to the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t have a particular problem with God creating through his natural laws.

I’m not saying this is easy. True, Genesis does speak of the earth bringing forth some of the species. Is this not at least suggestive of natural processes? And even creationists appeal to limited amounts of evolutionary change. But I do not find either of these very compelling. Scripture does not seem to be easily adaptable to the evolutionary narrative. But saying this is different than saying scripture definitely excludes evolution. For me evolution is not a likely interpretation of scripture, but it is not out of the question. And if it is not out of the question, then it must be considered.

So what is the scriptural problem with evolution? The problem is that evolutionary thinking is, and always has been, motivated by non biblical claims about God. I have discussed this in this blog, but the best place to find these claims is in the evolution literature, both before and after Darwin. Simply put, evolutionary thought is motivated and justified by various claims about how God would create the world. God wouldn’t create all of the many lowly creatures—that is beneath him. God wouldn’t create evil or inefficiency—that would be against his nature. God wouldn’t create particular patterns—that would be capricious. And so forth. In all about a dozen theological and philosophical arguments, that mandate evolution, arose in the Enlightenment years before Darwin. And they were and remain today tremendously influential. They are the reason that evolutionists today insist evolution is a fact, not merely a theory. Evolution is, at bottom, a religious idea developed in polite Christian settings. Today’s atheists, like a conforming teenager who thinks he is in rebellion, rehearse these same arguments as if demonstrating a religious skepticism.

But the Bible will have none of this. Scripture presents a creator who is in control. This creator knows precisely what he is creating. He may use miracles, he may use natural processes, but there are no surprises in the end. This may sound evolution friendly but it is not. This view is not at all accommodative of evolutionary thought. For as evolutionist SJ Gould put it, “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread.” Both atheist and theist alike agree god would not have created this mess, and so evolution must be a fact. That is a religious claim that doesn’t pass the scriptural test. (And without its religious claims evolution is left only with its scientific claims which are prima facie absurd). Consider, for example, God’s message to Job regarding the unlikely ostrich:

      “The wings of the ostrich wave proudly,
      But are her wings and pinions like the kindly stork’s?

      For she leaves her eggs on the ground,
      And warms them in the dust;

      She forgets that a foot may crush them,
      Or that a wild beast may break them.

      She treats her young harshly, as though they were not hers;
      Her labor is in vain, without concern,

      Because God deprived her of wisdom,
      And did not endow her with understanding. [Job 39:13-17]

This and other passages do not give hints that creations arose in spite of the creator’s wishes.

The real story

And so the real story is not at the level of mechanism, but at the level of divine intent. And this brings us full circle back to the Ken Ham and the creationists. For while creationists and evolutionists argue about mechanism, they both agree about divine intent. God, they say, did not intend for this evil world. For creationists the problem is solved by the Fall. For evolutionists it is solved by natural law. But where it counts they agree. Consider, for example, how Ham responded to the killer tsunami in the Indian Ocean a few years ago:

Those of us who believe in a literal Genesis have a history, a history concerning the Fall, a history concerning the Flood. So when we look at this world, we’re looking at a fallen world. It’s not God’s fault there are tsunamis. … Death is not God's fault. [Christianity Today, April 24, 2006]

Creationists say God would not use long time periods to create. They say God would not use cruel processes to create. These are claims about divine intent, and that is the real story.

Does Religious Belief Drive Evolution Skepticism?

A typical evolutionary argument is that skepticism is driven by religious belief. As one evolutionist recently commented:

isn't it odd that essentially 100% of evolution deniers just happen to also be theists?

If you want to understand evolution, you need to listen to evolutionists. This example reveals their logic at work. Consider the facts. Atheists typically believe the world arose on its own. They believe in evolution, in one form or another. Theists, on the other hand, have a diversity of views. Christians in particular have the freedom to engage the broad spectrum of explanations, ranging from natural processes to miracles. Ever since Basil, Christians have considered origins narratives ranging from mostly secondary to mostly primary causation.

Given these facts, how could it be odd that "essentially 100% of evolution deniers just happen to also be theists"? How could this suggest religious belief drives evolution skepticism? Quite the opposite, it is what one would expect. There are few atheists who aren't evolutionists. So what?

Only evolutionary logic could force-fit the fact that skeptics are mostly theists, into support for evolution.

Next, note the evolutionist's use of the word "denier." This is a strong word, but why apply it to skeptics of the dogma that the world spontaneously arose? Evolutionists insist their idea is a scientific fact, and they fail to support this claim. In fact there are monumental scientific problems with this claim. Cannot people be skeptical without being labeled as a "denier"? If one wants to use the D word here, it would seem that those insisting evolution is a scientific fact are the ones who are in denial.

But on the other hand, those who accept evolution come from all sorts of religious backgrounds; over 40% of scientists are professing believers of some sort or another. If religious/anti-religious sentiment were driving acceptance of evolution what are we to make of the religious diversity in the evolution crowd, and the very distinct lack of religious diversity in the anti-evolution crowd? Another coincidence?

Again, the evolutionary logic misses the mark. Where it counts there is little religious diversity in evolutionary thought. Yes there are atheists and various types of theists, but there is a conserved metaphysical view. Christians such as Francis Collins and atheists such as PZ Myers agree that god would not have created what we find in this world.

Skeptics, on the other hand, have tremendous diversity. Their religious views range from young earth creationism to the very theological naturalism that drives evolution. In the latter case, many skeptics of evolution agree with evolutionists that natural processes must have played a significant role in creating the species because god would not have created what we see in biology. But they also realize that those natural processes are, alone, not up to the task.

And of the Christians who do accept evolution, do you think they are on average more, or less educated than their brothers and sisters who don't accept evolution? Care to take a guess? Is that a coincidence as well?

So what does that tell us about the state of our educational system?

Isn't the high correlation between education and acceptance of evolution a little odd? It's almost as if the more people learn about the subject, the more likely the are to accept it.

The correlation between education and acceptance of evolution is not necessarily a plus for evolution, as though good science is up for a vote. In fact, our education system does not teach critical teaching regarding evolution. Instead, it dogmatically instructs students that evolution is a fact using the usual combination of faulty science and metaphysical reasoning. You can read more about this here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

It is hardly surprising that there might be a correlation between education and acceptance of evolution.

I guess education is a bad thing, a temptation from the devil, perhaps. Maybe they're just being brainwashed in institutions of higher learning, and it's a happy accident that they are able to so effectively add to mankind's body of knowledge.

Here we have both a straw man argument and circular reasoning that are all too common amongst evolutionists. Clearly the education system is badly failing and we ought not try to cover that over with hyperbole.

Secondly, there is no happy accident with evolution. It has not added to "mankind's body of knowledge." Only the evolutionist's erroneous claim that evolution is good science can lead to this conclusion.

did you ever stop and think how odd it is that you're smarter than 99.9 percent of all professional biologists? (and around 98 percent of all other scientists?) ... Supernatural explanations are ruled out, as a matter of practicality. Science is about testing claims. Call us when you can test supernatural causes. A design claim that had either a testable agent, or a testable mechanism would be considered.

Finally the serendipity of evolutionary thought is clear. Naturalism is mandated and luckily enough, it also turned out to be a fact. Naturalism is mandated and isn't it strange that all those scientists just happen to be evolutionists? Naturalism is mandated and incredibly enough, all those journal articles support evolution. Naturalism is mandated in our schools and amazingly there is a correlation between education and acceptance of evolution. Evolutionists aren't fooling anyone but themselves.

The Evolution of Homoplasies

It is one of the fundamental concepts of, and evidences for, evolution: similarities found in different species. These similarities, or lack thereof, are used to construct evolutionary trees which show how the species are evolutionarily related. Species sharing many similarities are close neighbors while species sharing fewer similarities are distantly related. And according to textbooks such relationships are obvious. Those textbooks show clean and compelling illustrations of evolutionary trees. But the biological data are not so cooperative. One problem is the many uncanny similarities found in what otherwise must be, according to evolution, more distant species.

Similarities in otherwise distant species are known as homoplasies. They are, as one paper explained, not the expected outcome:

Phenotypes and taxa are expected to diverge as evolution proceeds. Thus, when divergent lineages are found to be morphologically similar, explanation is needed. Homoplasy is similarity that is the result not of simple ancestry, but of either reversal to an ancestral trait in a lineage or of independent evolution. …

However, one does not seek homoplasy—it “finds” the researcher and compels one to ask appropriate questions.

Of course evolutionists have answers for those questions. These unexpected similarities may have independently evolved from scratch. Or perhaps the trait disappeared in one lineage, only to later reappear much later. To elucidate such details evolutionists construct evolutionary trees. As the paper explains:

Phylogenetic analysis is necessary to show that derived similarity is not the simple result of common ancestry of taxa being compared.

But the process of constructing evolutionary trees, using phylogenetic analysis, presupposes that evolution occurred. In other words, in order to demonstrate that a trait independently evolved in different lineages, evolutionists begin by assuming evolution. This assumption, however, is implicit rather than explicit. It is unspoken. When reporting that they have discovered that a trait, such as the vision system, independently evolved several times, evolutionists do not explain that they began by assuming evolution is true. Without that assumption there is no scientific reason to think these homoplasies evolved—independently or otherwise.

In fact, there are plenty of scientific reasons to think they did not evolve. Specific designs, where many are possible, are not likely to repeatedly arise by chance (no, selection does not help).

In some cases these homoplasies develop in the embryonic stages via similar pathways. For instance, the Pax6 master control gene plays an important role in the development of the different vision systems that are supposed to have independently evolved. This means that Pax6 must predate the evolution of these different vision systems. This is yet another example of the serendipity that pervades evolutionary theory. In this case, we must believe that genes such as Pax6 first evolved when no vision system existed. Then later it enabled such phenomenal designs to arise:

The image-forming eyes of invertebrate and vertebrate taxa are convergent organs that share some core developmental genetic mechanisms that exemplify deep homology. All eyes, invertebrate and vertebrate, develop through a cascade of similar transcription factors despite vast phylogenetic distances. These networks include genes (e.g., Pax6) that have been deployed in different ways at different times, and specific pathways that have re-evolved in different lineages by mutation, gene duplication, and intercalary evolution. The networks and cascades, which contain homologous genes and members of the same gene families, are not genetically identical. Thus, the end phenotypes might be general homologs at a deep hierarchical level but convergent with respect to end phenotype and phylogeny. Indeed, what has historically been termed “convergence” and attributed to independent evolution in unrelated taxa has a common genetic system associated with trait development.

Such pre adaptation narratives are ubiquitous in the evolution literature. All kinds of profoundly complex designs arise only much later to be recruited as a crucial component in some even more complex design.

Plant and animal defense systems

Or consider the striking similarities in how plants and animals defend against pathogens. In this case various homoplasies are found, calling for various evolutionary explanations. As one paper explained, a clear, irrefutable picture has emerged. “Plants and animals use similar types of cell surface sensors to detect conserved microbial signatures.”

These different types of cell surface sensors work rather well in helping to defend against pathogens. This is why they evolved independently according to evolutionists. But in fact what such findings reveal is the tight design requirements. Apparently only a limited set of cell surface sensors can do the job.

This runs counter to the typical evolutionary explanation that the impossible probabilities they must surmount don’t really matter because there must be a great many different, as yet unknown, designs that evolution could have luckily hit upon. Yes, the chances of any one design is remote, but there must be a great many different designs that all could do the job. Apparently not in the case of these cell surface sensors.

Evolutionary trees are not the clean, compelling result as they too often are represented to be. Homoplasies, which strain the evolutionary probabilities even further, are yet another example of this. Yes the similarities between the species can be modeled with evolutionary trees, but such a conclusion has substantial scientific problems.

Parasitic Insects and Evolution

Would God really want to take credit for the mosquito? Natural theology, which reigned before Charles Darwin introduced his theory of evolution, argued that creation demonstrated the power, wisdom, and goodness of God. But what about nature’s evils? Consider for example the ichneumonoidea, wasps that inject their eggs into a host insect. They also inject a chemical that paralyzes the host without killing it. Aside from providing an incubator for the wasp’s eggs, the host also becomes the first meal for the newly hatched wasp, which carefully consumes the host so as to keep it alive a long as possible. As is so often observed in nature, profound levels of evil are accompanied by profound levels of complexity. Evil, it turns out, is not always banal.

The parasitic wasp

In Darwin’s day the entomologist (and Reverend) William Kirby pointed out the amazing complexities of such parasites. How did the parasitic wasp know how to avoid injuring the vital organs? He wrote:

In this strange and apparently cruel operation one circumstance is truly remarkable. The larva of the Ichneumon, though every day, perhaps for months, it gnaws the inside of the caterpillar, and though at last it has devoured almost every part of it except the skin and intestines, carefully all this time it avoids injuring the vital organs, as if aware that its own existence depends on that of the insect upon which it preys!

But Kirby’s views were not shared by those who felt god would never create such a horrifying world. Centuries earlier Thomas Burnett, Ralph Cudworth, John Ray and others had called for a distancing of God at the sight of far less wrenching evils. Imagine what their response would have been to nature’s new round of atrocities being uncovered by science.

It probably would have been similar to Darwin’s response, who argued in his book on evolution that the instinctive hatred of the queen-bee for her own fertile daughters and the parasitic wasp feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars were yet more proofs for his new theory. It seemed that Darwin was, as one historian put it, “yearning after a better God than God.” As Darwin wrote to Asa Gray in 1860:

I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or the cat should play with mice.

Science and religion were “thoroughly interwoven in Darwin’s life and thought,” but this was hardly unique to Darwin. It is not surprising that many theologians gave a warm welcome to Darwin’s theory. Nor is it surprising that Darwin’s theory would lend itself to a new round of theological naturalism. Theological naturalism had argued for a distancing of the Creator from creation. Now Darwin’s theory was filling in the details. It was natural selection, not a divine finger, that did the job. Darwin’s idea provided a new framework for continued theological speculation.

The mosquito

More disgusting than the parasitic wasp is the mosquito, which brings misery and death to hundreds of millions of people every year. As evolutionist Ken Miller rhetorically asks, would god really want to take credit for the mosquito? Of course if Burnett, Darwin, Miller and the rest don’t believe god would create such evils, then evolution must be true, one way or another.

But like the parasitic wasp, the mosquito is complex. For instance, a few years ago Chinese researchers discovered that mosquitoes have an amazing ability to land, walk and take-off from water. Of course mosquitoes are not the only insect that can move about on the water’s surface, but the buoyancy of a mosquito’s leg—about 23 times the mosquito’s body weight—and its nanostructures are remarkable.

Blood-feeding insects also have exquisitely designed carbon dioxide sensors to home in on their prey. Research has identified two dedicated neural receptors that together cause nerve signals to be sent when carbon dioxide is present. The experiments found that the presence of both receptors is required—either one alone failed to sense the carbon dioxide.

As one scientist explained, such molecular sensor systems are “exquisitely sensitive” to carbon dioxide levels we don’t even notice. They are, indeed, “wonders of natural engineering.”

Given such an exquisite design, and given that both receptors are required because a single receptor working alone is ineffective, one might think that evolutionists might struggle to explain this engineering marvel.

But evolutionists have no such problem. After all, would god really want to take credit for the mosquito?

Philosophers to Discuss the Metaphysics of Evolutionary Naturalism

Don’t be fooled by the upcoming conference on “The Metaphysics of Evolutionary Naturalism” at the American University of Beirut. In spite of the title the conference is not about the metaphysics of evolutionary naturalism, it is about the metaphysical implications of evolutionary naturalism. As the conference description explains:

From the perspective of the history of philosophy, evolutionary theory raises some very fundamental questions indeed.

Indeed yes, but they won’t be asked at this conference. Here are some questions that won’t be asked:

1. Can a strictly naturalistic research program enjoy guarantees of completeness and realism?

2. Is a strictly naturalistic approach required for legitimate science? If so, can the resulting explanations be objective facts?

3. Is it serendipity that the strictly naturalistic origin of life narrative is (i) required for science and (ii) a fact?

4. Are contrastive approaches to theory evaluation, such as likelihood ratios, undermined by the problem of unconceived alternatives?

5. Does the infinite regress make design impossible? Non scientific? Both? If so, does this mandate evolution as is claimed?

6. Would an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable creator never intend this world as evolutionists claim?

7. Can atheists make metaphysical assertions, such as that god would never create this world, without contradicting themselves?

How can one be a naturalist after Darwin? On the ancient teleological naturalist picture, namely that of Aristotle, the goal of the study of the physical world, organic and inorganic, was to reveal the ultimate purposes of things. This teleological world-view was then coupled with the belief in a unified deity, and resulted in the belief that the study of the physical world offers a window into the mind of God.

Darwin completed a revolution in the sciences that was begun by Galileo. Galileo’s mathematization of physics removed Aristotelean final causes from the inorganic part of the natural world. Darwin’s theory of natural selection removed those final causes from the organic part of the natural world as well. The implications of such a radical shift in world-view are still vague, especially the implications concerning metaphysical commitments.

But the implications of Darwin’s theory on metaphysics are uncannily similar to the pre Darwin metaphysics from which Darwin argued. Today we conclude that it is a greater god who does not intervene, but this is precisely what Leibniz and others vigorously argued. Shouldn’t the metaphysical inputs be considered as well as the metaphysical outputs?

Given all the advances in science, it seems that we cannot answer the traditional philosophical problems concerning consciousness, freedom or even religion but through this new Darwinian naturalist lens.

But the naturalist lens was crafted from philosophical and theological concerns, long before Darwin got in a boat and went anywhere. Religion drives science, and it matters (but don’t tell the philosophers).