Biological Control of Cell Membrane Structural Properties

You learned about DNA and proteins in your high school biology class, but you may not remember much about the cell’s membrane which is based on a dynamic, fluctuating sandwich structure. This cellular envelope controls what chemicals enter and exit the cell, partly due to molecular machines such as channels and pumps in the membrane, and partly due to the sandwich structure itself. This sandwich structure is a barrier to certain types of chemicals. But the membrane permeability and the operation of the molecular machines depend on the details of the sandwich structure. And as recent research has been finding, contra evolutionary expectations, organisms actively maintain and fine-tune the sandwich structure in response to environmental challenges.

The cell membrane’s sandwich structure consists of two layers facing away from each other. Each layer is made up of an array of phospholipid molecules lined up next to each other. Phospholipid molecules consist of a water-loving (or hydrophilic) head, a phosphate group, and two oily (or hydrophobic) hydrocarbon tails.

The two layers face away from each other in a tail-to-tail arrangement. This creates a very oily, low dielectric, interior of the sandwich. While small oily molecules are able to pass through this membrane structure, it is difficult for any water-loving molecule, including water itself, to pass through the barrier. So when this sandwich structure forms a closed sphere surrounding the cell, the inside compartment is separated and protected from the outer aqueous environment. But the sandwich structure is not a simple, rigid, structure. It fluctuates, and this influences the membrane performance.

At lower temperatures the sandwich structure has a more rigid, gel, phase and at higher temperatures it has a less rigid, fluid phase. As with the freezing and melting of water there is a distinct phase change, between the gel and fluid phases of the sandwich structure, which occurs over a rather narrow temperature range. This melting point temperature is strongly influenced by the degree of attraction between the adjacent phospholipid tails. Depending on the temperature and this degree of attraction, the sandwich structure may be like a gel or like a fluid, and this is important because the phase influences the membrane permeability and the membrane’s molecular machines.

Within the membrane sandwich structure, the phospholipid tails are attracted to each other via the weakest chemical force, van der Waals interactions. Unlike the stronger chemical bonds, van der Waals interactions do not arise from the trading or sharing of electrons. So how do these interactions work?

Consider two neighboring atoms. As the electrons quickly move about, uneven charge distributions can occur across the atom. One side of an atom may temporarily be positively charged, and the other side negatively charged. Such charges influence the neighboring atom. For instance, a negative charge will tend to repel the electrons of the neighboring atom causing an attractive, uneven charge distribution in that atom. The two atoms can then continue with synchronized, fluctuating charge distributions. But all of this depends greatly on the distance between the two neighboring atoms. If they are too far apart (or too close together), the entire interaction, weak as it is, becomes insignificant.

The distance between adjacent phospholipid tails depends on their shape. If the tails have two hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom, then there are no double bonds. Such saturated chains have a consistent, linear, shape and they pack tightly together at the van der Waals preferred distance.

Unsaturated chains, on the other hand, have double bonds which cause structural kinks, loose packing and therefore weaker van der Waals interactions. And the particular location of the double bond is important, as some locations disrupt the van der Waals interactions more than others.

So all of this means that the number and location of hydrogen atoms in the phospholipid tails is an important tuning parameter (there are other tuning strategies as well), determining the phase of the sandwich structure and, in turn, the cell’s membrane performance. This is particularly important for organisms that are subject to greater temperature variations, such as poikilotherms. Such temperature variations can cause unwelcome phase changes in the membrane’s sandwich structure.

Physiological response to temperature change

Years ago it was thought that the various protein machines in the cell’s membrane were more or less randomly distributed. It is yet another example of the influence of evolutionary thinking on biology. If the biological world is a fluke, then aren’t biological designs, such as the cell’s membrane architecture, random?

Now we know better. The cell membrane architecture is anything but random. In fact, the attention to detail is enormous. This includes the phase of the sandwich structure and its tuning mechanisms, such as the degree to which the phospholipid tails are saturated. Here are quotes from representative research papers discussing how organisms monitor and control their membrane fluidity, particularly in response to temperature variations:

E. coli incorporates increasing proportions of saturated and long-chain fatty acids into phospholipids as growth temperature is increased. It was found that this compositional variation results in the biosynthesis of phospholipids that have identical viscosities at the temperature of growth of the cells. [link to paper]

Numerous studies have shown that fluidity is an important factor in the function of biological membranes. Changes in fluidity affect the activity of membrane-bound enzymes and the activity of transporters, as well as the permeability of membranes to nonelectrolytes, water, and cations. Given that temperature has profound effects on membrane fluidity, it is not surprising that poikilotherms adjust the composition of their membranes in ways that defend fluidity in the face of changes in body temperature. …

Although the ways in which membrane composition is altered in response to temperature are not always consistent among species, tissues, cells, or even organelles, a few important trends have emerged. One prominent response to a decrease in the body temperature of poikilotherms is an increase in the percentage of unsaturated fatty acids that make up the phospholipids. … Phospholipids with saturated fatty acids pack readily into bilayers, whereas phospholipids with unsaturated (and therefore, kinked) acyl chains tend to disrupt hydrophobic interactions among acyl chains of adjacent phospholipids. An increase in the proportion of unsaturated fatty acids thus results in an increase in membrane disorder and fluidity, which tends to oppose the ordering effect of a drop in temperature. [link to paper]

The phospholipid composition of plasma membranes from the kidney of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, was determined over a period of 21 days as fish were acclimating between temperatures of 5 and 20 degrees C. Proportions of phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) were significantly higher (29.03 vs. 23.26%) in membranes of 5 degrees C- than 20 degrees C-acclimated trout [link to paper]

Our observations suggest that a physical parallel to the changes of lipid composition is the maintenance of an optimal lipid order in the hydrophobic core of the cytoplasmic membranes. It can be interpreted as a tendency of Bacillus subtilis to keep the lateral pressure in its membranes at an optimal value, independent of the temperature of cultivation. [link to paper]

Not only is the cell membrane intricate and complex (and certainly not random), but it has tuning parameters such as the degree to which the phospholipid tails are saturated. It is another example of a sophisticated biological design about which evolutionists can only speculate. Random mutations must have luckily assembled molecular mechanisms which sense environmental challenges and respond to them by altering the phospholipid population in the membrane in just the right way. Such designs are tremendously helpful so of course they would have been preserved by natural selection. It is yet another example of how silly evolutionary theory is in light of scientific facts.

Response to Comments

The theory of evolution states that the entire biological world is a fluke—it just happened to arise all by itself. Actually, evolutionary thought extends this claim to the entire universe. From a scientific perspective there are, not surprisingly, substantial problems with this view. It is an idea that goes back at least to the ancient Epicureans who believed swerving atoms created the world and today’s version is, frankly, no less ridiculous. But that’s not all. Evolutionists are not merely interested in researching this unlikely idea—they also insist it is a fact. This is where the story takes a turn for the really strange (as if it were not already strange enough). For there literally is no question—at least no rational question—that evolution is not a fact. It would be like saying Santa Claus is a fact. And yet this is what evolutionists steadfastly claim. They are unable to justify the claim, but they are nonetheless quite certain of it and they are unable to see anything wrong with their idea. Here are some recent comments from evolutionists.

I recently explained that the vitamin C pseudogene pattern is not powerful evidence as evolutionists claim. Evolution did not predict it and would not be harmed if there was no such pattern. Given that the pseudogene exists in certain species, it is true that the pattern fits evolution. But this isolated fact does not mean much. For instance, the sun rising fits geocentrism, and a pig with a cold nose fits the theory that pigs can fly. To this an evolutionist explained how the pattern is interpreted according to evolution, and concluded:

Under evolutionary theory we would predict that the loss of function in GULO will result in loss of conservation—the relaxation of purifying selection—and the accumulation of more differences to GULOP sequences than to functional GULO sequences per unit time as inferred in molecular phylogenies. And this is so. Despite this, we would still expect the differences within a clade such as Haplorrhini to match create a nested hierarchy because of the differing times since divergence as predicted by common descent. And they do. Clearly, this is not the same as wet nose/flying pig.

The evolutionist’s comments about the pseudogene pattern and how it fits evolution seem reasonable. But he has missed the larger point. The consistency of the pattern with evolutionary expectations is not strong evidence for evolution. Sure, let’s call it a successful prediction. All kinds of ridiculous theories enjoy successful predictions, such as the theory that pigs can fly. The question here is not whether the evidence is consistent with evolution, but whether this is powerful and compelling evidence for evolution, as they claim. It isn’t. This is important because evolutionists use examples such as these are a sort of proof text for their claim that evolution is a fact.

I also made the point that evolution and common descent lack a plausible mechanism. To this an evolution commented:

As you are aware, the hypothesized pattern of common descent is evaluated independently of any reference to mechanism.

This is the typical defense, but it is not quite true. Common descent does make claims about the expected pattern of designs in biology, and as such it specifies the underlying mechanism of evolution, to a certain degree. For instance, it requires gradualism. Without gradualism common descent could not know what biological patterns to expect. Yet evolutionists routinely turn off gradualism where the data do not fit.

I also explained that, aside from consistent data, evolution and common descent have made so many false predictions. If we are going to evaluate theories according to their predictions, then certainly we must conclude evolution and common descent are false by modus tollens. To this an evolution commented:

No, we must not conclude that at all. I would have thought that by now, you should have realized that the expected observations given a certain hypothesis are probabilistic. Here, let me help you:

This is what you want things to be like: If hypothesis H then observation O. Not O, therefore not H.

This is what things are like: If hypothesis H then there is some sort of probability of observation O. Not O, therefore ... well, definitely not not H via modus tollens.

I would also have thought that by now, you should have realized that there are alternatives to strict Popperian falsification for evaluating theories. …

Common descent didn't come out looking silly at all - unlike your sophistry.

Actually I briefly discuss this issue of predictions and falsification here (Sections 1.1 – 1.4). Contrary to the evolutionist’s complaint here, I did not say that a falsified prediction implies the hypothesis is false. What the evolutionist omitted was the word “many.” This is not a case of one or two failures. Evolution and common descent have generated a plethora of false predictions, including their major predictions. My point was that evolutionists advertise their few successful predictions to be compelling while failing to reckon with their many false predictions.

Indeed, if there is a fallacy here it is not in my suggestion that false predictions be seriously dealt with, but in the evolutionist’s over estimating the power of their successful predictions. Yes, we can agree the vitamin C pseudogene patterns are consistent with evolution and common descent, but this is hardly the strong evidence they claim it to be. This is important because it is precisely this type of mistake that masks the tremendous mistake evolutionists are making. If a few consistent observations make evolution compelling, then its myriad problems can be ignored. After all, evolution must be a fact, so those problems must merely be research problems. It is a case of confirmation bias on steroids.

Next, in my previous post I discussed how evolutionists say that random biological variation, such as caused by mutations, created the entire biological world. I noted that an analogy once used for this claim is that of a room full of monkeys pounding away at typewriters and producing Hamlet. To this an evolution commented:

It is, pardon me, disgraceful. When used by third-rate creationist debaters, it is either a sign of total ignorance of evolutionary biology, or a deliberate attempt to mislead an unwary audience into thinking that evolutionary biology is nothing but a theory of pure mutation, unaided by natural selection. That strikes the audience as an absurd theory. They are not being told of the effect of natural selection.

Why CH, who knows much better, would endorse this absurdity without at least a little embarrassment is a matter for puzzlement.

But I did discuss the role of selection in the evolutionary explanation. I also explained why selection doesn’t solve the problem and that experiments have helped to demonstrate this.

The problem here is not that evolutionists are ill-informed or not smart. They are well educated, intelligent people. But knowledge and intelligence do not ensure wisdom. Very smart people can believe in strange things. This has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history, and today it is demonstrated no better than in the theory of evolution.

Evolutionist: Our Best Defense Against Anti-Science Obscurantism

Evolutionists say undirected, random events, such as mutations, accumulated to create the entire biological world. An analogy once used for this claim is that of a room full of monkeys pounding away at typewriters and producing Hamlet. Today the analogy needs to be updated from typewriters to computer keyboards, but otherwise remains apropos. When the letters are selected at random, a page (or screen) full of text is going to be meaningless. And the problem is no easier in the biological world. Whether English prose or molecular sequences, the problem is that there are relatively few meaningful sequences in an astronomically large volume of possibilities. Nor does selection help because the smallest sequence that could be selected—such as a small gene—is not very small. All of this is rather intuitive and for centuries evolutionists have been trying to solve the problem. Their latest solution is being called natural genetic engineering.

Heat death

It is obvious that randomly selected letters aren’t likely to form a meaningful message. The exact probability is difficult to compute but it is astronomical. As physicist Gerald Schroeder has pointed out, even a simple Shakespearean sonnet of only 488 letters would never be produced by those monkeys (there are 10^691, or a 1 followed by 691 zeros, different possible transcripts). As Schroeder explains:

Convert the entire 10 to the 56 grams of the universe (forget working with the monkeys) into computer chips each weighing a billionth of a gram and have each chip type out a billion sonnet trials a second (or 488 billion operations per second) since the beginning of time, ten to the 18th seconds ago. The number of trials will be approximately ten to power of 92, a huge number but minuscule when compared with the 10 to power 690 possible combinations of the letters. We are off by a factor of ten to power of 600. The laws of probability confirm that the universe would have reached its heat death before getting one sonnet. We will never get a sonnet by random trials, and the most basic molecules of life are far more complex than the most intricate sonnet.

And the fact that there are many possible sonnets, not just one, does not make a meaningful dent in these astronomical probabilities. Both prose and proteins are not going to arise by chance.

But evolutionists say it is not a matter of chance because natural selection guides the way. Evolution is not required to create a complete organism or even a complete gene, it needs only small victories which natural selection preserves.

Consider the word “selection.” It has 9 letters and for a 26 letter alphabet there are 26^9, or 5 million million different possible combinations of letters. The monkeys would never type out even this single word.

But what if a correct letter, whenever it happens to be typed, is preserved by natural selection? Then the search shrinks from 26^9 to 26*9 different possibilities. The search space reduces from 5 million million to 234 different possible combinations of letters.

From Charles Darwin to Richard Dawkins, evolutionists have elaborated on how natural selection largely removes the random element from evolution and makes the origin of the complex biological world all but inevitable. As Darwin wrote:

Although the belief that an organ so perfect as the eye could have been formed by natural selection, is enough to stagger any one; yet in the case of any organ, if we know of a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor, then, under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.

Darwin explained that his theory “would absolutely break down” if we found a design that could not possibly have arisen gradually. 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. It is obvious to objective observers that the biological world abounds with such designs, but showing this to an evolutionist is another matter.

Evolving even a single protein under carefully controlled laboratory conditions has proved to be elusive. You can see the details here, here, here, here and here. The problem is that blind gradualism, even with perfect selection, doesn’t magically produce fantastic designs as Darwin, Dawkins and the rest had hoped.

The specific difficulties with their fanciful idea are many. From the rough fitness surfaces to the smallest unit of selection not being small, it is difficult to coax intricate designs from a warm little pond.

Consider again, for example, the word “selection.” It seemed impressive that selection could reduce the search space from 5 million million to 234 different possibilities. But this cannot actually happen because selection cannot select individual letters. What good is an “s”? The word “selection” doesn’t make sense until you have the entire word.

Recognizing these problems evolutionists are now searching for non gradualistic mechanisms to do the job. Proteins must form not by the gradual accumulation of mutations but by sudden rearrangements and new designs may evolve by macromutations.

Perceptive readers will see the obvious problem: replacing gradualism with saltationism does not solve the underlying problem. For instance, from where did the protein modules come? Or from where did the macromutation mechanisms come?

Ultimately, no matter how many thought experiments and just-so stories are brought to bear, the problem remains the same. Evolutionists claim that incredibly complex designs just happened to arise all by themselves.

Natural genetic engineering

This silliness reached new levels in a recent review paper which attempted to summarize this emerging, non gradualistic view of evolution. Even evolutionists admit that biology has turned out to be complex. And this complexity is no less observed at the cellular and molecular levels of biology. As the review paper, for example, explains:

Molecular cell biology has uncovered sophisticated networks in all organisms. They acquire information about external and internal conditions, transmit and process that information inside the cell, compute the appropriate biochemical or biomechanical response, and activate the molecules needed to execute that response. These information-processing networks are central to the systems biology perspective of the new century.

The genome is not like a blueprint as evolution once envisioned, but more like an interactive read-write memory system. The cell’s ability to monitor, detect and repair genome damage is astonishing. But the complexity doesn’t stop there. Yes the genome often needs a repair, but it also sometimes needs a redesign.

The twentieth century discovered that cells can read and write information onto their genomes at several levels. Beyond this, cells can even restructure their genomes to meet environmental challenges. And these redesigns can be passed on to future generations.

All of this means biology possesses incredible capabilities evolutionists never envisioned. And it also means that biological change responds intelligently to the environment. Biological variation is not according to blind, undirected processes such as mutation, as envisioned by evolutionists. Evolutionists thought that such variation was random with respect to need and that adaptation was merely the result of the useful variations surviving via natural selection. This unintelligent process would require long time periods but biology revealed intelligent, fast adaptation.

There was strong resistance to this paradigm in the evolution camp but now evolutionists are increasingly finding it to be a convenient enhancement to the ailing gradualism. If organisms can restructure their genomes to meet environmental challenges, then could they not have evolved via such brilliance? This would remedy the problems with strict gradualism, and fit the abruptness of the fossil record.

Cells redesign proteins by shuffling their modules, and genes are shared between organisms via complex horizontal transfer mechanisms. To these add even greater mechanisms such as cell fusions and whole genome doublings and you have nature’s version of genetic engineering. Is this natural genetic engineering not capable of evolving the species?

Once we were breeders, so evolution was viewed as a natural breeder. Now we are genetic engineers, so evolution is viewed as a natural genetic engineer. Evolution somehow created this marvelous genetic toolkit with which to create the biological world. And fortunately the tools cooperate, working when and where needed, and not when and where not needed.

Now evolutionists can continue to speculate about “the origins of complex adaptive novelties at moments of macroevolutionary change.” For instance, is it not evident that retrotransposons were necessary for the emergence of mammals in evolution?

According to evolutionists, evolution just happened to create the retrotransposons which later just happened to be needed for the emergence of mammals. This and the many other fantastic mechanisms that form the natural genetic engineering toolkit first had to be created by evolution so they then could cause evolution to happen.

Evolutionists ignore such serendipity while they debate the nuances of how evolution occurred, secure in their knowledge that it did occur. As the review summarizes:

Thus, novel adaptations that require changes at multiple locations in the genome can arise within a single generation and can produce progeny expressing all the changes at once. There is no requirement, as in conventional theory, that each individual change be beneficial by itself.

Just as genetic engineering has many advantages over the old breeding techniques, evolutionists find that the new natural genetic engineering version of evolution works so much better than the old breeding version of evolution.

Anti-science obscurantism

Natural genetic engineering is the most recent version of evolutionists’ attempts to explain how the entire biological just happened to arise spontaneously. A fluke that now amazes us.

Evolution is a religiously motivated mandate that, from a scientific perspective, is unlikely. But as Michael Polanyi once explained, they will “come so firmly to uphold this fiction that they will regard it as ‘the scientific view’ of life and condemn anyone challenging this fallacy as an anti-scientific obscurantist.”

Polanyi was often prescient and no less so here. For the evolutionist’s certainty comes not from the science, but from the underlying religion. And crucial to this dogma is the turning upside down of science. The legitimate scientific concerns, that evolution is profoundly improbable, are themselves cast as an anti-scientific obscurantist, just as Polanyi put it. As the review paper concludes:

In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science.

It is truly difficult to know whether to laugh or to cry. Evolution is, at once, both hilarious and dangerous. Religion drives science, and it matters.

Evolutionists: Larry Moran Still Correct!

In my previous posts I discussed Larry Moran’s undefendable claim that the vitamin C pseudogene is powerful evidence for evolution and common descent. In response evolutionists continue to comment that I have it all wrong and Moran’s claim is quite correct. Here is what one evolutionist wrote:

Common descent is well supported by the evidence in the broken GULO gene (along with myriad other independent lines of evidence in the haplorhine primates). The fixed mutations in the broken gene form a nested hierarchy that matches phylogenies for functional genes. Interestingly, the substitutions differ from those in guinea pigs, which appear to have had an independent loss of GULO. These threads of evidence amount to more than claiming that common descent is only better than pure chance.

But common descent is, in fact, not “well supported” by this evidence. Evolutionists continue to repeat their mantra, but this evidence does not support common descent anymore than a pig with a cold nose supports the claim that pigs can fly. It is true that if pigs can fly, then we would expect to find pigs with cold noses. But we would hardly conclude that the hypothesis that pigs can fly is strongly supported by pigs with cold noses.

Nor do the “independent lines of evidence” support common descent any better. Indeed, the evidence leaves little doubt that what seemed obvious is, in fact, obvious. Common descent not only is intuitively silly, it is scientifically silly as well.

There is, for starters, that little problem of mechanism. Though they can’t supply the details, evolutionists say that a long, lucky, series of garbled, random mutations and other flukes of variation led to the millions and millions of species with all their incredible designs.

Or again, there is the problem of the biological patterns that don’t fit. From the striking similarities found in distant species to the profound differences in otherwise allied species, the predictions of common descent have been falsified many times over.

If ever there was an idea that doesn’t work scientifically, this is it.

It is true that there are patterns that, when taken in isolation, do fit common descent. The vitamin C pseudogene is an example. But this doesn’t magically dissolve the multitude of scientific problems. Yes, the evidence is consistent with common descent, but so too is the rising sun consistent with geocentrism.

As if sensing a problem the evolutionist, in typical fashion, makes a quick switch to metaphysics with a series of rhetorical questions:

If we were to reject common descent, is there some theory dealing with common design that provides a better explanation for a shared, broken gene in a line of otherwise apparently closely related species?

This is the heart of evolutionary thought. It is not that evolution makes sense (it doesn’t), it is that evolutionists believe it is the only choice. Rhetorical questions such as this one are common with evolutionists. A key to understanding evolution is that evolutionists think this line of reasoning is scientific, that such questions can be answered with a high level of certainty, and that in particular the answer is “no.”

But of course, contra evolutionists, science has no way of making such ultimate truth claims. It cannot know all possible explanations. As such scientists do not make sweeping claims that no such reasonable explanation is possible for observations, such as the vitamin C pseudogene patterns. Evolutionists, on the other hand, do.

Another evolutionist wrote that the vitamin C pseudogene pattern is a prediction of evolution given that it is found in certain species. He writes:

For example, given that humans, gorillas and orangutans all have this pseudogene, common descent predicts that chimps will also have it.

This seems reasonable, but since evolution and common descent have made so many false predictions, then certainly we must conclude they are false by modus tollens. If evolutionists use successful predictions to promote their theory, then shouldn’t the many false predictions mean something?

Religion drives science, and it matters.

Evolutionist: Larry Moran is Correct!

In my previous post I discussed Larry Moran’s undefendable claim that the vitamin C pseudogene is powerful evidence for evolution and common descent. In response an evolutionist in the know commented that I had it all wrong and Moran’s claim is quite correct:

We can calculate the likelihood of those mutations being shared via common ancestry. This likelihood is much higher than the likelihood you get under the hypothesis that the mutations were independently acquired by chance. This is strong support for the common ancestry model in the usual way that statistics are used to support hypotheses throughout all hypotheses in science.

It is worth elaborating on this argument to reveal the depths of evolutionary thinking. For this argument dates back centuries (at least to 1734 when Daniel Bernoulli used it) and hinges on, like all evolutionary arguments, deep metaphysics.

The term “likelihood” here refers to the probability of the evidence (the vitamin C pseudogene patterns in this case) we observe given a hypothesis of how they arose. So the likelihood of common descent, in this case, is the probability of the vitamin C pseudogene patterns given that they arose via the process of common descent.

Now the trick evolutionists use is to compare this likelihood of common descent with the likelihood of random design (or as our elite evolutionist puts it above, “independently acquired by chance”).

Don’t worry if you haven’t understood a word of this explanation. Here is the plain English version: Evolutionists claim that similarities (and in particular similarities that are harmful) between species are powerful evidence for their theory because it is obvious that such similarities did not arise by chance.

This certainly is the Mother of all false dichotomies. When put into plain English it is astonishing.

To be sure, who would disagree that most similarities between species—including the vitamin C pseudogene patterns—probably did not arise by chance? That seems reasonable enough.

But evolutionists then claim that, therefore, their unlikely theory is compelling.

In other words, simply put, it’s either evolution or chance. Those are your choices. That’s it. This argument is prima facie absurd and it is astonishing that evolutionists are serious. But they are, and that makes it important. Until you understand the depths of these fallacies you will not understand evolutionary thought.

Of course what evolutionists have actually shown is that their theory is better than origin by pure chance. That’s what their argument reveals—one silly theory is more likely than another silly theory. And they call this science? Sorry but this does not make evolution a fact. In fact, evolution and common descent still have all the monumental problems they had before evolutionists made the argument. None of those problems went away just because of the non random vitamin C pseudogene patterns.

But this argument is typical, and it speaks volumes. Evolutionary thought is not merely science gone wrong. It is not the consequence of a faulty experiment or flawed theorem. It is an utterly ridiculous mandate, tracing back to antiquity, that the universe and everything in it must have just happened to arise spontaneously. The scientific absurdity of the idea is exceeded only the evolutionist’s certainty it is true. Religion drives science, and it matters.

Larry Moran: Vitamin C Pseudogene is Powerful Evidence

In his on-going criticism of Jonathan Wells’ new book, The Myth of Junk DNA, evolutionist Larry Moran now asserts that the much discussed vitamin C pseudogene is powerful evidence for evolution and common descent:

The main argument of scientists like Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne is not that the GULOP pseudogene exists. It's that the GULOP gene and its pseudogene are at the same location in the genomes of all mammals. In the primate lineage this gene is non-functional due to a number of mutations that make it impossible to produce a functional protein. Some of the same deactivating mutations are found in related species such as humans and chimpanzees. This suggests strongly that the non-functional pseudogene was inherited from a common ancestor.

How did Moran arrive at such a conclusion? Why is the vitamin C pseudogene such strong evidence for inheritance via common descent? Unfortunately, Moran fails to explain his reasoning. He simply asserts this amazing claim.

Evolution and common descent have failed to explain how the original vitamin C gene could have arisen. In fact they fail to explain how any protein could have arisen. They have also failed to explain how all of biology could have arisen.

This is not a good start. So far this evidential claim of Moran’s seems unlikely. But let’s look at the pseudogene in particular. Perhaps there is something about this pseudogene that will make the evidence more obvious. For example, perhaps evolution made a strong, heroic prediction about this pseudogene.

In fact, evolution and common descent made no such prediction.

Well is there, at least, a powerful retrodiction? Again, no. Well perhaps evolution and common descent would absolutely be falsified if there were no such vitamin C pseudogene. Again, the answer is no.

No prediction, no retrodiction, and no falsification. Evolution and common descent do not predict the vitamin C pseudogene, and they are not harmed if there was no such thing. This in addition to the fact that evolution and common descent do not explain how the original gene could have arisen in the first place.

Moran’s assertion that the vitamin C pseudogene is powerful evidence for his unlikely idea appears to be just that, an empty assertion.

The Evolution of Mat-Hugging

Did early multicellular animal life obtain its oxygen from floating microbial mats? Oxygen would have been scarce and this raises questions of how early animal life could have evolved. Evolutionists are now speculating that mats of photosynthetic bacteria might have supplied local high concentrations of oxygen:

Modern atmospheric oxygen levels average around 0.21 atm, but when multicellular life was evolving, levels of around 0.10 atm would have been the norm — too low for most multicellular organisms. "Daily fluctuations in oxygen would have made it very difficult for animals other than simple creatures like sponges to exist," explains Jim Gehling, a palaeontologist at the South Australian Museum in Adelaide.

Gingras and his colleagues propose that the mats had a key role in helping early animals to get the oxygen they needed. "We think that animals used the small but highly oxygenated zones as oases," says Murray.

But even this idea has its challenges. Night time oxygen levels would have been too low and large animals might have had difficulty accessing the oxygen in the narrow mats. Perhaps, Gingras hypothesizes, evolution solved these problems with “mat-hugging behaviours.”

This sort of unfounded speculation is typical in evolutionary theory. It brings a creative, story-telling, element into science, where unlikely scenarios with little empirical support are routinely set forth as though they are genuine scientific explanations.

And, as in this example, these just-so stories often entail substantial serendipity. In this case, the evolution of multicellular animals is made possible by the earlier evolution of particular microbial mats and special mat-hugging behaviors.

Evolution must have first produced the needed lagoons, photosynthetic bacteria, and mat structures to set the stage. Then came multicellularity that just happened to have nearby mats available. Even with all this, however, problems remained. Evolution luckily just happened to produce the much-needed mat-hugging behavior. It was sheer luck (remember, evolution has no brains), but when that behavior happened to arise, it must have been wildly successful.

This, then, is science in the hands of evolutionists—a vehicle for story-telling. Religion drives science, and it matters.

The Education of a Science Writer

Last week science writer John Farrell discussed the genetic evidence for evolution in his Technology article at Forbes. Farrell referenced evolutionist Stan Rice to argue the genome could not have been designed. Not only is it a clumsy design but it is susceptible to terrible, debilitating mutations. Such a design would never have been intended and must have evolved via the mindless play of natural processes.

Farrell’s other source was evolutionist Larry Moran, who has convinced Farrell that Jonathan Wells has it all wrong in his new book, The Myth of Junk DNA. As Farrell summarizes:

From which we are to conclude, the creationist argument goes, that most scientists are knee-jerk ideological Darwinists, and isn’t this another good reason to get a better theory like intelligent design into the public school science classrooms.

But Farrell’s conclusion does not stand up very well to a simple fact check. First, Wells is not a creationist. Second, Wells makes no argument for teaching intelligent design in public school science classrooms. Perhaps Farrell is confused because his source, Larry Moran, makes similarly erroneous claims.

Moran erroneously refers to Wells as a creationist. Moran also makes liberal use of the pejorative term “IDiot.” Why the harsh rhetoric? Let’s have a look.

Moran cries foul when Wells is asked in an interview to explain junk/non-coding DNA “for those who dropped science after Grade Ten.” Here is how Wells answered the question:

“Non-coding” in this context means “non-protein-coding.” An important function of our DNA is to specific the sequences of subunits (amino acids) in the proteins that (along with other types of molecules) make up our bodies. When molecular biologists discovered in the 1970s that about 98% of our DNA does not code for proteins, some biologists called non-protein-coding DNA “junk.”

This is a straightforward, factual response for those “who dropped science after Grade Ten.” But Moran warns that it is misleading. After all, there is non coding DNA, such as regulatory sequences and RNA genes, that we all agree is functional and not junk.

Anyone familiar with the subject matter will recognize this as a canard. Of course Wells is not referring to that small fraction of non coding DNA whose function was known in the 1970s. Wells is not giving a dissertation on the subject. He is giving a brief response, explaining why long stretches of DNA with no known function and not thought to be transcribed (not all non-protein-coding DNA), was considered to be junk DNA by some.

This is why discussions with evolutionists are often tedious. It is tiresome to stretch out explanations with lengthy caveats. And so, like lawyers, evolutionists follow the rule of “least charitable” reading to castigate those who doubt their dogma.

For sympathetic readers who are less familiar with the details of molecular biology, such as many science writers, Moran’s attempt to discredit will seem convincing.

Moran next thinks Wells has wrongly associated junk DNA with selection:

Implying that junk DNA has anything to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is totally wrong. No matter how you define “neo-Darwinism” the fact remains that most biologists who believed in adaptation were very skeptical of junk DNA precisely because it didn’t fit with Darwin’s view of evolution.

But Wells made no such assertion. Wells explanation was thoughtful and circumspect. He explained that “According to Charles Darwin’s theory, all living things are descendants of common ancestors that have been modified solely by unguided natural processes that include variation and selection. In the modern version of his theory—neo-Darwinism— genes control embryo development, variations are due to differences in genes, and new variations originate in genetic mutations.”

In fact, Moran’s assertion that junk DNA can have nothing to do with evolution by natural selection is an overly simplistic, black-white version of the theory. While advocating natural selection Darwin’s book was full of examples of dysteleology, and the same is true of today’s literature. Those who view selection as more important tend to look for adaptive explanations, but that by no means absolutely rules out non adaptive explanations.

Moran also objects to Wells’ reference to Richard Dawkins and the concept of selfish DNA. Moran writes:

Dawkins was writing about selfish DNA when he wrote that passage in The Selfish Gene. Selfish DNA is not junk DNA. It has an adaptive purpose and a function. It is completely wrong to claim that Richard Dawkins was a big fan of junk DNA in the 1970s. Dawkins makes that very clear in The Extended Phenotype when he proposes various explanations for the extra DNA in our genome.

Completely wrong? Selfish DNA is not junk DNA? It has an adaptive purpose and a function? Dawkins proposes various explanations?

Once again, to the uninformed reader this criticism may seem damning. Most readers will not have read The Extended Phenotype and so will trust Moran. But again Moran’s criticisms are obvious canards to those more familiar with the material.

Dawkins does not propose various explanations for the extra DNA in our genome in The Extended Phenotype. He reviews a couple of concepts by way of introducing the selfish DNA concept which, contrary to Moran’s canard, does not have an adaptive purpose. Dawkins writes:

the thing to notice in the present context is that [adaptive explanations] are hypotheses made in the traditional mould; they are based on the idea that DNA, like any other aspect of an organism, is selected because it does the organism some good. The selfish DNA hypothesis is based on an inversion of this assumption: phenotypic characters are there because they help DNA to replicate itself [158]

Dawkins goes on to explain the concept of intragenomic selection that he views as selecting for selfish DNA:

“Intragenomic selection” can therefore lead to an increase in the amount of certain types of meaningless, or untranscribed, DNA, littered around and cluttering up the chromosomes. [161]

In other words, contrary to Moran’s canard, the selfish DNA concept did not include adaptive purpose and Dawkins did not propose various explanations.

These criticisms of Wells are not only unfounded, they come from Moran who, as an evolutionist, believes the world just happened to arise by chance. The entire biological world is a fluke that spontaneously arose. Indeed, Moran believes this is an obvious fact. After all, DNA, and the rest of this world, certainly would never have been designed:

It’s true that well-established bits of junk DNA—like known pseudogenes—have been effectively used to challenge the idea that our genome appears designed. Those examples remain powerful, and true, examples of evolution that cannot be explained by Intelligent Design Creationism. They have not been refuted and they have not been explained by the IDiots.

If it is true that junk DNA is impossible under creationism or design, then sure, they are probably “true” examples of evolution. But how does Moran know such truths? Metaphysical certainty is a dangerous thing. Religion drives science, and it matters.

From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought

Last week science writer John Farrell discussed the genetic evidence for evolution in his Technology article at Forbes. Farrell’s sources are evolutionists Larry Moran and Stan Rice. It is an interesting example of how evolutionary thinking is handed down and disseminated.

A strong framework

Three hundred years ago the famous and influential Lutheran polymath Gottfried Leibniz argued strenuously for what today is sometimes called naturalism. The idea that the world arose and operates strictly via the natural laws we observe has, historically, been mandated by a framework of interrelated theological and philosophical arguments.

The theological arguments deal mainly with the nature and attributes of a divine creator. The philosophical arguments, on the other hand, deal mostly with knowledge and how we obtain it. Or simply put, the theological arguments deal with god and the philosophical arguments deal with man.

While some of these arguments trace back to antiquity, the complete framework was developed and refined in the early years of modern science when Christian thought was applied to the growing movement of describing and understanding nature. By the mid eighteenth century—a century before Darwin wrote his book—the framework was largely complete.

As a leading intellectual Leibniz contributed substantially to the emerging framework. For example, Leibniz ruled out divine intervention, for it surely was a sign of a lesser, incompetent, creator whose natural laws were insufficient to do the job.

But Leibniz was by no means the only, or even the central, figure in the construction of this framework. What is interesting is how ubiquitous was the urge for naturalism. It was not confined to one genre of thought. It did not come from a particular discipline, or region or religion. Scientists, philosophers and theologians, on the continent and in Britain, Lutheran, Anglican and Roman Catholic all contributed. And today we could add atheist to the list. As PZ Myers wrote:

We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We’re pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.

Believing that god does not exist does not preclude believing things about god. In fact, ironically, atheists often hold their theological views more intensely than do “religious” people.

And not surprisingly, with his Lutheran background, Myers’ religious sentiment is nothing new. The idea that an omniscient, omnibenevolent creator would never have created this world comes right out of that seventeenth century framework for naturalism. Whether god creates via natural laws or whether, with Myers, we dispense altogether with this superfluous Prime Mover, matters little. The basic story line was already told long ago.

Understanding John Farrell (and all of evolution)

This centuries old framework for naturalism is key to understanding evolution today. Science writers such as Farrell report that scientists have discovered, for instance, “just how not-so-intelligently designed the human genome actually is,” but this is not a scientific conclusion. For unlike the target of his criticism (the ID theory) which refers to complexity rather than goodness of design, evolutionary thought and its underlying naturalism framework refer to the design’s metaphysics. As Farrell explains:

Many mutations are neutral, or can be easily overcome by technology. And some of them cause a great deal of psychological suffering, such as the mutation that causes trimethylaminuria, which is physically harmless but causes the victims to smell like rotten fish no matter how clean they are. But many other mutations are deadly or, worse yet, can cause a person to have a lifetime of suffering. Perhaps the most disturbing mutation is the one that causes Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. This one mutation, of a single amino acid in a protein, causes the victim to have an uncontrollable compulsion for self-mutilation: they chew their own lips and fingers, and find sharp objects to stab their faces and eyes. The victims are fully able to feel their pain and they know what they are doing, but cannot control it.

Obviously to argue such mutations are the product of intentional design is to suggest the deity or intelligence responsible, is something of a monster.

Indeed. Leibniz was concerned about the evil in the world, but he had no idea how deeply it runs. It is truly abominable, and it makes for a moving and powerful argument that no good creator who has the power to create a universe would ever create this one.

Whether by the Epicurean’s swerving atoms, or science’s natural laws, the world must have arisen on its own.

How could anyone deny this obvious conclusion? This and other metaphysical arguments leave no room for debate. Evolution must be true. We may not know how it occurred, but it is a fact.

The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical.

Oblivious to this context Farrell continues:

But it’s even more problematic, Rice argues: the very structure of the genome itself—not just the mutations—is inconsistent with the idea that the genome, or the human body, or the world was directly designed by an external agent.

The human genome is full of stuff that interferes with the use of genetic information to produce healthy and functional enzymes and bodies. First, consider the fact that only about 1 percent of human DNA codes for those enzymes. About 68 percent of the DNA consists of non-coding DNA that is between the genes, and about 31 percent of the DNA consists of non-coding DNA that is inside of the genes. This is, at best, a clumsy system, because whenever a cell divides, all of this DNA is copied, not just the DNA that the cell will use. In addition, since each gene is broken into little “exon” fragments by a large amount of internal “intron” DNA, the genetic information must be spliced together in order to be put to use. That is, to get a functional enzyme, the genetic information from lots of exon fragments has to be cobbled together. If it works, there is no problem, but the whole system is so cumbersomely complex that it often fails. Not only are many genetic diseases caused by mutations in the genes themselves, but many genetic diseases are caused by (or also caused by) failures of the cell to deal properly with the non-coding DNA and the splicing.

Science writers are at the end of the dissemination chain. Evolutionary thought began with the theologians and philosophers. Their ideas informed institutions and culture. By the time Darwin developed his theory the ground was well prepared and all his strong arguments were non scientific. Nothing has changed today except the details. Evolutionists continue to issue their scientifically absurd proclamations that everything spontaneously arose by itself. They are absolutely certain of this, and inform us that doubters must be religious fundamentalists. Next historians, philosophers and intellectuals apply these evolutionary truths to their respective fields. The world is explained in terms of evolutionary thought. Finally the science writers regurgitate the dogma that is handed down to them. At this point the story line cannot be changed or questioned. The authorities are too intimidating and institutions too overwhelming. The ridiculous must be true. In fact, it must not even be ridiculous.

Next we’ll look at Farrell’s other source, Larry Moran.

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.