Response to James O. Goldsborough's "Another attempt to deny evolution"Goldsborough's article was published in the San Diego Union Tribune on February 12, 2004By Casey Luskin Introduction On February 12, 2004, San Diego Union Tribune columnist James O. Goldsborough wrote an opinion article entitled "Another attempt to deny evolution." Dozens of news or opinion (or opinionated news) articles have been written nationwide regarding intelligent design over the past few weeks because of the many areas currently deliberating about science education. Because the IDEA Center is based in San Diego, we felt it appropriate to respond to Mr. Goldsborough's article. We at the IDEA Center value respectful intellectual exchange. If our neighbor Mr. Goldsborough desires to write any responses to this page, the IDEA Center would gladly house his response unedited, provided that we are given the opportunity to respond and continue the dialogue. Quotes from Mr. Goldsborough's article (see http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/goldsborough/20040212-9999_mz1e12golds.html for the article) are in grey boxes. First, we will list Casey Luskin's letter which he sent to the Union Tribune. Unfortunately it was not published, as it was sent almost two weeks after Mr. Goldsborough's article. Following Casey's letter is one by Ryan Huxley. Following that is an in depth discussion of various issues that arise in the design/evolution/creation debate. In his recent article, "Another attempt to deny evolution" (2/12/04), James O. Goldsborough provides a good example of the fallacious style of argumentation used to protect the theory of evolution from those who approach its validity with an open, skeptical, and scientific mind. It would be nice for Goldsborough if those who today "deny evolution" are the same evil sort that tried to prosecute John T. Scopes in 1925, excommunite Galileo in the 17th century, and kindle the horrible inquisition against the Jews in the 17th century. But they're not--and for skeptics of evolution, this issue is no longer about religion. It's about science--good science. It is true that in 1925 religiously motivated politicians in Tennessee sought to criminalize the teaching of evolution while open-minded scientists and school teachers merely sought to educate students. Today, the tables have turned: Journalists, authority bodies in the scientific community, and others of the "liberal" elite seek to demonize skeptics of evolution as religious bigots while open-minded scientists and school teachers see legitimate scientific problems with evolutionary theory, and just want students to know about them. Goldsborough would have the public believe that "DNA mutations are quite capable of getting us out of the slime." But where is the proof? "Irreducibly complex" entities in the cell simply could not have arisen through natural selection, for if they change at all they cease to function, and natural selection is blind to functionless biological entities. There are many irreducibly complex structures in biology for which no functional evolutionary origin can be constructed. Goldsborough recognizes that "according to intelligent design, natural selection is insufficient to explain the DNA mutations necessary to create homo sapiens" but here he refutes his own argument: intelligent design is clearly based upon scientific reasoning, not religion. (Contrary to Goldsborough's assertion, no scientific proponent of intelligent design argues that the logic through which we detect design allows us to discover that the identity of the designer is God.) It is based upon the simple recognition that the machine-like cellular components have the very similar properties to those we see in human-designed machines today. That's why Francis Crick, who co-discovered the structure of DNA, wrote, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." By demonizing skeptics of evolution by appealing to old myths and stereotypes that died long ago, James Goldsborough's article serves no useful purpose in the current debate over the teaching of origins science other than to serve the political agenda of those who seek to insulate the theory of evolution from legitimate scientific criticism via labeling and stereotyping those who have legitimate scientific objections. Aren't "liberals" supposed to look past stereotypes and be open minded? Perhaps the true liberals today are the ones who only want students to learn the full breadth of the scientific evidence--some of which strongly challenges evolution. For a full discussion, please visit www.ideacenter.org. Sincerely, Casey Luskin The following is a letter written by Ryan Huxley: I would like to commend James O. Goldsborough for writing on a topic I find truly fascinating: evolution. However, I was a bit disappointed by the apparent lack of understanding of factual events and the degree to which empirical evidence supports a “molecules-to-man” origins hypothesis. The typical stereotypes promulgated in Goldsborough’s article were also discouraging. Consider first Goldsborough’s statements relating to recent events in the state of Georgia:
The first statement is correct technically (though, the concept of evolution was still going to be taught), while the second and third are not: Perhaps it is easier to leave out important details such as these when attempting to portray those who question evolution in any fashion as ignorant, religiously motivated fanatics, who are dogmatic and tyrannical in their proposals. But it seems that Superintendent Cox was not being dictatorial in her initial proposal, as evidenced by her statement: However, I do want to make clear that I am in agreement with Goldsborough that Superintendent Cox’s proposal was not appropriate: removing the word “evolution” does not help students in their understanding of the world. In fact, I (along with many others) think that not enough is taught about evolution in our schools. This leads to the next state covered by Goldsborough’s article: Kansas. Goldsborough states that:
Again, this is incorrect; though, given the number of newspaper articles that quote this same type of misinformation, Goldsborough’s misunderstanding is explainable. A brief review of the actual language used in the 1999 Kansas science standards will show this to be incorrect, but is not worth including here (however, a link is provided to the entire standards used: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/kansas99stds.htm; doing a word search for the word evolution will show that it was clearly still part of the standards). Goldsborough’s comments on the “molecules-to-man” hypothesis seem to be overstated:
Though Goldsborough does not explicitly refer to the concept of “molecules-to-man,” it is a reasonable inference from the language of “prehistoric slime” and “getting us out of the slime” utilized. Perhaps Goldsborough is planning to shock the world with his new discovery of the evidence for this hypothesis and win the Nobel Prize? The only reason for my humor is based upon the evidence and the current understanding of abiogenesis, as made clear by a few quotes from mainstream science publications: “This scenario [origins of RNA-world] could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.” (Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth", Scientific American, October 1994, vol. 271, p. 78.) "The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existence or how life could have existed without it. The discovery of ribozymes has made it easier to imagine an answer to the second of these questions, but the transformation of an 'RNA world' into one in which catalysis is performed by proteins, and nucleic acids specialize in the transmission of information, remains a formidable problem." (Maynard Smith, John [Emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex] & Szathmary, Eors [Institute for Advanced Study, Budapest], The Major Transitions in Evolution, W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p.81 ) “However, it is now held to be highly unlikely that the conditions used in these experiments [i.e., the modeling of strongly reducing atmospheres] could represent those in the Archean atmosphere. Even so, scientific articles still occasionally appear that report experiments modeled on these conditions and explicitly or tacitly claim the presence of resulting products in reactive concentrations "on the primordial Earth" or in a "prebiotic soup". The idea of such a "soup" containing all desired organic molecules in concentrated form in the ocean has been a misleading concept against which objections were raised early (see, e.g., Sillen 1965). Nonetheless, it still appears in popular presentations perhaps partly because of its gustatory associations.” (Stephen J Mojzsis, Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, and Gustaf Arrhenius Before RNA and After: Geophysical and Geochemical Constraints on Molecular Evolution, Chapter 1 of The RNA World: Second Edition, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1999, p6) “A related casualty of the organic aridity of a near-neutral atmosphere is the concept of solution in the ocean, taken for granted almost automatically in much of the literature as the site of early chemical evolution toward complex biomolecules. The dilution in the ocean of soluble compounds from any weak source is forbidding; already sparse, unstable molecules introduced in a volume of 1.3 x 10^9 km^3 of seawater are mutually unreactive and hardly retrievable by evaporation or other means.” (Stephen J Mojzsis, Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, and Gustaf Arrhenius, Before RNA and After: Geophysical and Geochemical Constraints on Molecular Evolution, Chapter 1 of The RNA World: Second Edition, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1999, p 7) What all these quotes are essentially saying is that the problem of abiogenesis is hardly a problem solved; the scientific evidence for naturalistic abiogenesis is still elusive and encounters ever increasing difficulties. If there was an accurate depiction of a naturalistic model describing abiogenesis already proven, why would there be a “prize” for its discovery still being promoted (see http://www.us.net/life/)? Regarding intelligent design, Goldsborough has the following statements:
This is the typical stereotype promulgated by those unfamiliar with intelligent design. While I will not deny that there are many Christians involved in the intelligent design movement, there are agnostics within its ranks (David Berlinskicaveat and Todd Moody are examples), as well as other non-Christians (UCLA neurobiologist Jeffrey Schwartz is one example, and the noted atheist-turned-deist Antony Flew cites evidence for intelligent design as his reason for converting away from atheism; I also have a Muslim friend who is associated with IDURC.org) (edited 4/8/05). Additionally, the claim that “God must have directed the process” is not part of intelligent design. There are only two basic assumptions to intelligent design: 2. We can empirically detect those causes (based upon similar methodologies to archaeology, cryptography, and the SETI program). There are certainly religious implications to intelligent design, but there are not religious premises since there is no Biblical or other religious text references used to support it. Given that I am an intelligent design proponent, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with Goldsborough to help alleviate this common misunderstanding. Additionally, I would like to comment that more study of evolution should be encouraged in our schools. After all, examining all of the evidence is something I think everyone would agree is important for science education. Journalists are supposed to provide accurate information free from bias. This ideal is often difficult to achieve, but efforts should be made in line with these. To aid in a better realization of this ideal, I would be more than happy to meet with Goldsborough to elucidate the scientific nature of intelligent design. Respectfully, Ryan P. Huxley, M.S., P.E. IDEA Center Director of Programming Mr. Goldsborough's article centers around criticizing those who have taught criticisms of evolution in the science classroom. Before we can respond to Mr. Goldsborough's criticisms in full, the IDEA Center needs to make clear our own views about what origins science education should look like, so that there are no mistakes about points where we agree, and where we disagree with Mr. Goldsborough. When dealing with an issue like our origins, an issue which touches on deeply held beliefs held by those on "all sides" of this issue, it is important that we be ultra-careful in our presentation of the scientific evidence. Currently most school districts teach evolution "one-sidedely," meaning they teach students only about scientific evidence that supports evolution. This is bad science education. It does not encourage the ideals of liberal education, democracy, critical thinking, scientific skepticisms, nor does it turn students into good scientists or serve their needs in personal growth and intellectual and spiritual development as individuals. The IDEA Center does not recommend teaching any "less" evolution--but to teach more evolution--to teach both evidence that supports and evidence that does not support evolution. Additionally, good scientists are spawned when they learn to think critically about evidence--to question, to dig deeper and ask "why do you claim that?" and to understand other scientific posibilities, and the difference between science and non-science. We believe that a policy most consistent with these ideals is found in the "Santorum Amendment," a resolution passed by the United States Senate while debating the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: "(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject." Figuratively speaking, Goldsborough is re-enacting the play Inherit the Wind (which is loosely based upon the Scopes trial of 1925) which portrays skeptics of evolution as religious bigots who are against freedom of thought, freedom of love, and the teaching of evolution. Johnson says the following about the Inherit the Wind stereotype in his book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds:
The IDEA Center believes that any legitimate scientific theory could be taught in a science classroom. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory, but it is very new. Some aspects of intelligent design might be appropriate to teach now, but it would not hurt to wait to have intelligent design taught. Nonetheless, criticisms of evolution should be taught. That is the position of the IDEA Center, and it corroborates nicely with the views of others in the ID movement, such as Michael Behe: Quotes from Mr. Goldsborough's article are in grey boxes, and our commentary follows each section:
Here we are in agreement with Mr. Goldsborough: it is bad science education to censor evolutionary theory, and so the word 'evolution' should not be removed from Georgia textbooks. What matters is not semantics like if the word 'evolution' is or is not present but rather substance: thus we would urge that scientific evidence against evolution also not be censored.
We have come a long way--in fact, we've gone from bad to worse. It was very bad for the Tennessee legislators to criminalize the teaching evolution, but the public ridicule heaped upon those who today simply want a fair and balanced presentation of the scientific evidence in favor of evolution is a worse crime. At the time of Scopes, very little evolution was taught, and scientists were advocating for something good--for more science (i.e. evolution) to be taught. Today, scientists are advocating for less science to be taught--that only the evidence that supports evolution can be taught. This is worse than before Scopes.
Here Mr. Goldsborough is badly mistaken about what happened in Kansas. Kansas did not "ban ... the teaching of evolution from schools" nor did it argue that evolution "was no more 'provable than creationism." Mr. Goldsborough's misconception that Kansas banned the teaching of evolution is an unfortunately common misperception about what happened in Kansas that has been promulgatged in the press. Mr. Goldsborough is perhaps not to blame--the press almost universally mis-reported what really happened in Kansas. Phillip Johnsons well-documented account of the press's coverage of the Kansas controversy reveals what really happened: Concerning evolution, the standards state (taken from http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/kansas99stds.htm: "Evolution: A scientific theory that accounts for present day similarity and diversity among living organisms and changes in non-living entities over time. With respect to living organisms, evolution has two major perspectives: The long-term perspective (macro-evolution) focuses on the branching of lineages; the short-term perspective (micro-evolution) centers on changes within lineages." "Millions of species of microorganisms, animals, and plants are alive today. Animals and plants vary in body plans and internal structures. Over time, genetic variation acted upon by natural selection has brought variations in populations. This is termed microevolution. A structural characteristic or behavior that helps an organism survive and reproduce in its environment is called an adaptation. When the environment changes and the adaptive characteristics or behaviors are insufficient, the species becomes extinct." "Instruction needs to be designed to uncover and prevent misconceptions about natural selection. Natural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation but does not add new information to the existing genetic code. Using examples of microevolution, such as Darwin’s finches or the peppered moths of Manchester, helps develop understanding of natural selection. Examining fossil evidence assists the student’s understanding of extinction as a natural process that has affected Earth’s species." "Understand that microevolution, the adaptation of organisms - by changes in structure, function, or behavior - favors beneficial genetic variations and contributes to biological diversity." "Understand that natural selection acts only on the existing genetic code and adds no new genetic information." Biologists recognize that the primary mechanisms of genotypic change are natural selection and random genetic drift. Example: Natural selection includes the following concepts: 1) heritable variation exists in every species; 2) some heritable traits are more advantageous to reproduction and/or survival than are others; 3) there is a finite supply of resources required for life; not all progeny survive; 4) individuals with advantageous traits generally survive; 5) the advantageous traits increase in the population through time.
We agree with Mr. Goldsborough that what was done in Georgia and Tennesee was wrong. What happened in Kansas was misrepresented in the press and was not nearly as bad as what Mr. Goldsborough makes it out to be. We make no comment on the events in Vista because we lack sufficient information to comment currently. The important point that Goldsborough makes here is that "religion and science occupy separate places in our lives - one dealing with facts, the other with beliefs." This statement is false. Mr. Goldsborough states that religion = beliefs and science = facts. It would be more accurate to say that religion is based upon both empirical evidence and faith, while science is based primarily upon scientific evidence, and attempts to have no statements based upon faith. Goldsborough presents a false dichotomy because it implies that no religious beliefs can be scientific or at least consistent (or inconsistent) with scientific statements or the actual state of the natural world. To illustrate the lack of validity of Mr. Goldsborough's dichotomy, consider the following hypothetical and completely non-historically based, though plausible, scenario: Maximus Meteorologistus, a Christian living in the 4th Century A.D. in Rome, is a scientifically minded philosopher who decides to explore where rain comes from. One day after pondering this question, he reads the following quote out of the Book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament: "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again." (Ecclesiastes 1:7) Maximus exclaims, "I've got it! This is the answer--rain comes from sea water, which forms streams and rivers! I have seen many pools of water dry up. Maybe this is just what happens in the sea, except so much water dries up that it falls as rain. Then it drains back into the ocean through rivers and streams only to be evaporated back up again--a water cycle!" Inspired by this idea, Maximus develops, the "Water-Cycle Theory" and proceeds to tell his meteorologist colleagues not only how the theory seems to be empirically supported, but also how his theory is in concert with ideas he received from the Hebrew Scriptures. Unfortunately, most Roman meteorologists didn't like the Hebrew Scriptures (because of its moral precepts), and also believed that water was an inherent property of the air that fell out when it got cold, and that river water drained into the depths of earth below, never returning to the surface. They rejected Maximus's theory but the ROman Empire fell and centuries of data poured in, Water-Cycle theory proved to be the better explanation. Today we look back upon this scenario and must ask ourselves, "Can a religious belief makes claims which are testable -- and may even be verified -- in the real world in a scientific manner?" The answer is an unswerving yes or else all holy scripture is meaningless and rain doesn't fall from the sky. In fact, UCSD evolutionary biologist Christopher Wills explains quite nicely how religion and science intersect because it is simply a fact that both make statements about "where we came from:"
Here Mr. Goldsborough is stating that the Hebrew Scriptures make real statements about the natural world. Of course most Jews and Christians accept Joshua 10:13 as a bona fide miracle--an instance when God intervened with the laws of physics (It seems a small leap of faith to say that if God created the universe then He can make the earth stop moving while keeping everything on its surface from being hurtled into space). Additionally, many religious people have noted that in fact Isaiah 40:22 has been said to support a "big bang theory" which predicts an expanding (i.e. stretched) universe and have noted that the Hebrew word for "circle" (hûg) can also be translated as the word "sphere." Thus, if one prefers to take the Bible literally (as millions of religious people do, contrary to Mr. Goldsborough's model), then it is clear that these verses in no way contradict--and may even be quite consistent with the scientific evidence. Mr. Goldsborough seems to imply that one ought not to take the Bible, or any holy Scripture literally. But this is not how tens of millions of Christians, Muslims, or Jews understand religion today, or have traditionally understood religion. The NOMA model is a very recent fabrication, and it is not true to the nature of relgion. Finally, it should be noted that science in its ideal form has no faith beliefs. However, in reality science is based upon a philosophy belief assuming that naturalism is true. Naturalism is the idea that there is nothing other than matter or energy, and the laws of nature, which has any bearing upon the workings of the natural world. It is well substantiated that science is based upon naturalism (see note 2 below). Here are 2 quote from evolutionists discussing this fact: (Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd Edition (1999), emphasis added) “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. ... The theory of evolution is one of these explanations.” (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy Press, 1998, pg. 42, emphasis added) “It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent...[Darwin’s] mechanism, natural selection, excluded God as the explanation...” (Francisco Ayala [evolutionist scientist], “Darwin’s Revolution,” in Creative Evolution?!, eds. J. Campbell and J. Schopf (Boston, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994), pp. 4-5, emphasis added) Famous evolutionary zoologist Richard Dawkins said: "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us." (Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin (New York: Norton, 1977)) Science and religion are not totally separate, because religion can make testable claims about the natural world, and science can have religious implications about the place of humanity in the universe.
We agree with President Carter that it is not good to censor or distort the education of Georgia's (or any other state's) students. However, let us note that currently most states do censor the evidence which contradicts evolutionary theory. Thus, we wish that President Carter had pushed further with his noble ideal of non-censorship of scientific evidence and asked Ms. Cox and other states to not censor the evidence which contradicts evolutionary theory. We note here also that "ridicule" has been a favorite political tool by the Darwinists of embarassing people who are skeptical of evolution. Mr. Goldsborough's article and comparisons of creationists and skeptics of evolution to religious bigots is an excellent example. This merely promotes the "inherit the wind" stereotype. However, us Americans know that the fact that someone might ridicule you for what you do is no reason to not do it, if you believe it is right. In fact, the State of Ohio recently made some very modest--but good--changes in their curriculum which opened the theory of evolution up to the teaching of both evidence for and against it. Yet they have experienced this same ridicule. Ridicule is an effective (though ethically questionable) tool for shaping public opinion, but that does not mean that it is a good tool for shaping public policy. In comparing skeptics of evolution to the stereotyped religious bigots, it would appear that Mr. Goldsborough seems to use ridicule of the opposition to make skeptics of evolution look like terrible people. In reality, members of the intelligent desgn movement are not the bigoted religious people that some portray them as. The best policy is that which the Senate adopted in the Santorum amendment where it implicitly decried censorship of evidence on these controversial issues and spoke in favor of educating--not indoctrinating students. That's why Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts said of the Santorum Amendment:
Again, we agree with Mr. Goldsborough that Ms. Cox was wrong to want to censor ideas about the evolution of humans. We wish that the wealth of evidence contradicting evolution would also be taught. In fact, there is much evidence against the idea that humans are descended from apes. For a recent critique of the fossil evidence, see Intelligent Design and Human Origins by Casey Luskin (submittd to the ISCID Archives in November of 2003).
We agree with Mr. Goldsborough's statement that teaching biology without evolution is indeed like teaching philosophy without Plato. However, the current state of most curriculums would teach only Plato, and not Aristotle, who had many legitimate criticisms of Plato. Thus, one could easily say that, "teaching only the evidence in favor of evolution is like teaching philosophy by teaching only Plato, but not teaching Aristotle." We want students to learn the full wealth of evidence surrounding evolution, much of which supports, and much of which contradicts evolutionary theory.
This is false to say that "creationists" keep their intentions private. Organizations which want to challenge the one-sided teaching of evolution in schools are very vocal about this. One recent book by many who wish to challenge the one-sided teaching of evolution in schools is a volume entitled, "Darwinism, Design, and Public Education" (edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, Michigan State University Press, 2003). Another book which advocates the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design theory is "Law, Darwinism, and Public Education" by Francis Beckwith (Rowman and Littlefield, 2003) which recently received a very favorable review in the January, 2004 issue of Harvard Law Review (117 Harv. L. Rev. 964, see http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/HarvardLawReview.htm).
Here we actually also agree with Mr. Goldsborough. Proper usage of the term "theory" shows that the word theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses" (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science by the National Academy of Sciences, 1998). A theory is something is well substantiated. Semantics aside, there is no doubt that evolution is a theory in the sense that it does incorporate many facts, laws, inferneces, and tested hypotheses. The question we must ask is, "Is evolution a fact?" and "are there other acceptable theories of origins besides evolution?" We believe that the theory of evolution has many serious problems (see our Evolution Primer for a summary of the major arguments against evolution. But it is wrong to say that evolution is "just a theory" because that uses an improper definition of the word theory. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is usually something which has much support behind it.
Mr. Goldsborough here cites no actual evidence to back up his point. We presume that when he says "primordial slime" he is referring to the "primordial soup" hypothesis. In reality, this idea has fallen under intense criticism of scientists in the past 20 years as there has been an increased recognition that the gasses in the atmosphere present on the early earth could not have created a "primordial soup" which contained the biulding blocks. At present the slime has no origin. While, there is no doubt that scientists (such as Stanley Miller) have obtained amino acids through certain reactive gaseous mixtures, it should be noted that Miller-Urey experiments were designed and conducted without considering the actual chemical composition of the earth's early atmosphere. Miller himself admits that "[i]t is assumed that amino acids more complex than glycene were required for the origin of life, then these results indicate a need for CH4 (methane) in the atmosphere" (Stanley Miller and Gordon Schlesinger. Prebiotic Synthesis in Atmospheres Containing CH4, CO, and CO2. Journal of Molecular Evolution 19:376-382 (1983)) and "[w]e believe that there must have been a period when the earth's atmosphere was reducing, because the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions." (Miller, S.L., and Orgel, L.E., The Origins of Life on the Earth, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Halt, p. 33 (1974)) Miller found that without methane, hydrogen based H2 - N2 - CO / CO2 atmospheres produce nothing more than the amino acid glycine (Miller, 1983), and that this is most effective when hydrogen / carbon ratios are high > 2, very unlikely on the early earth. Without methane or ammonia, origins of life experiments showing how we could produce a "primordial soup" are generally fruitless. So what was in the earth's early atmosphere? In 1966, Abelson wrote that, "geologists favor … that genesis of air and oceans is a result to of planetary outgassing … and ... produce and atmosphere consisting of CO2, N2, and H2"--there was no methane or ammonia. (Abelson, Philip H. "Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth," from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol 55 Pg. 1365-1372 (1966)) This has remained orthodox theory as Rode (1999) wrote, "modern geochemistry assumes that the secondary atmosphere of the primitive earth (i.e. after diffusion of hydrogen and helium into space) had been formed by outgassing of volcanoes and therefore that it mainly consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, sulfur dioxide and even small amounts of oxygen." (Rode, B.M. "Peptides and the Origin of Life". Peptides (20) 1999. Pg. 773-776) A recent study found that ancient volcanoes were probably just like modern ones, meaning there was no significant methane or ammonia coming out and the paper was forced to conclude that, "[l]ife may have found its origins in other environments or by other mechanisms." (Canile, Dante, "Vanadian in peridotites, mantle redox and tectonic environments: Archean to present" Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195:75-90 (2002)) Abelson goes on to say that there is "no evidence for … but much against" an ammonia-methane atmosphere, noting that, "[a] quantity of ammonia equivalent to present atmospheric nitrogen would be destroyed [by ultraviolet radiation] in ~30,000 years." (Abelson, 1966). He, and Lasaga et. al. found that if there was methane gas creating a primordial soup, it should have left a signature of organic carbon in ancient sedimentary rocks, perhaps even due to a 1 to 10 m thick "primordial oil slick" (Lasaga, Antonio, H. D. Holland, M. J. Dwyer. "Primordial Oil Slick". Science, Vol 174, pg. 53-55 (Oct 4, 1971)) (after all, Miller-Urey experiments produced by far more tar than anything else, and if many prebiotics were produced, then tar should have covered the early earth), for which there is no geological evidence. So, basically, there is no geological evidence for a primordial soup, and the geochemical evidence says that the gasses which were present on the early earth could not have created a primordial soup. Why is this idea still promulgated to the public? As secular origins of life theorist Robert Shapiro said, "[w]e have reached a situation where a theory has been accepted as fact by some, and possible contrary evidence is shunted aside." (Shapiro R.D., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life" Summit: New York NY, 1986) So drastic is the evidence against the primoridal soup hypothesis, that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended to scientists a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth." (The Search for Life's Origins. National Research Council Space Studies Board, National Academy Press: Washington D.C., 1990, pg. 66, 67, 126)). What about the idea that our species exists because our ancestors escaped predators? To condense the results of much more extensive paper published here, our genus Homo is significantly different from any previous hominid ape species in the fossil record, and thus this bears the marks of intelligent design. The rapid and immediate explosion of modern human cultural activity in the archaeoloigcal record almost seems to point towards a Garden-of-Eden like rapid origin for our species (see Archaeology: Art of the ancients, Nature 426, 774 - 775 (18 Dec 2003)).
This is a mischaracterization of design. The ID movement does state that natural selection is insufficient to create various aspects of biology, but it does not state that therefore God must have directed the process. Here is how intelligent design works: 1. The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. 2. When intelligent agents act, they tend to produce high levels of "complex-specified information", and in our experience, complex-specified information is always the product of the action of intelligent design. 3. "Complex specified information" is basically a scenario, or circumstance which is unlikely to happen through natural processes (making it complex), and conforms to a specific pattern (making it specified). Both language and machines are good examples of things with high levels of complex-specified information. 4. When we look at biology, very complex machine-like entities exist, which must be exactly as they are, or they cease to function properly. They are specified, because they conform to a particular pattern of arrangement organization which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. 5. The high level of complex-specified information in these biological machines makes them "irreducibly complex"--they have many interacting parts (making them complex) which must be EXACTLY as they are in order for the machine to work properly (making them specified), and any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function and make the machine stop working, making them "irreducibly complex" (they could not be any less complex and still function). 6. These "irreducibly complex" structures cannot be built up through a Darwinian evolutionary process, because Darwinian evolution says that a biological structure must be functional along every small-step of its evolution, and "reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly. 7. Because there is no known natural mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, and because they exhibit complex-specified information, a quality known only to be produced by intelligent design, we conclude that these irreducibly complex structures are intelligently designed. In this argument there has been no appeal to God or the supernatural. Intelligent design may have religious implications (i.e. that we arose from a purposeful intelligence and not from blind chance) but it is not based upon religious premises. There is no intelligent design proponent who uses the reasoning "if not (natural selection) then therefore God did it." This is fallacious reasoning and it is not what intelligent design proponents are saying. In fact, leading design theorist William Dembski states that intelligent design explicitly does not identify the identity of the desiger, but only detects design in the world. Not identifying the designer is not a cop-out or unwillingness to be honest about motivations, but rather stems solely from the pure empirical limitations of intelligent design theory.
Mr. Goldsborough here refutes only a straw man. The statement that God exists may not be testable through science. Scientifically speaking, God isn't a part of natural selection, nor is He a part of intelligent design! He may have created a world where natural selection operates, and He may have designed all life on earth--but using the tools of science we'll never know. However, as seen in the explanation above, we can reliably detect if an object bears the marks of having been designed by some intelligence--and thus intelligent design theory is a legitimtae scientific explanation. Mr. Goldsborough asserts that "DNA mutations are quite capable of getting us out of the slime" but as has been noted, not only is there no evidence for the slime, but there are serious obstacles to the mutation-selection mechanism creating complex biological features. To briefly elaborate, in the Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin said, There appear to be serious scientific criticisms of evolution. Goldsborough would have us believe that all critics of evolution are people who seek to prosecute biology teachers, persecute Jews, or burn scientists at the stake. In reality, critics of evolution give learned and well-reasoned arguments, and they are individuals with qualified science backgrounds. In schools, we do teach science, and we need to teach all the scientific evidence that exists. For now, this at least includes both evidence for AND against evolution. I'll conclude with another good quote from Phillip Johnson: Casey Luskin M.S. Earth Sciences, UCSD IDEA Center Co-President, Founder of the IDEA Club at UC San Diego Law Student, University of San Diego School of Law Endnotes: 1. The 1999 Kansas science standards contain the following references to evolution: A teacher is an important role model for demonstrating respect and civility, and teachers should not ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view or belief. Teachers model and expect students to practice sensitivity and respect for the various understandings, capabilities, and beliefs of all students. No evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current science theory should be censored. "Students will understand the history of science. ... Some concepts have long-lasting effects and include: Copernican revolution, Newtonian physics, relativity, geological time scale, plate tectonics, atomic theory, nuclear physics, theory of biological evolution, germ theory, industrial revolution, molecular biology, quantum theory, medical and health technology." Evolution: A scientific theory that accounts for present day similarity and diversity among living organisms and changes in non-living entities over time. With respect to living organisms, evolution has two major perspectives: The long-term perspective (macro-evolution) focuses on the branching of lineages; the short-term perspective (micro-evolution) centers on changes within lineages. Instruction needs to be designed to uncover and prevent misconceptions about natural selection. Natural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation but does not add new information to the existing genetic code. Using examples of microevolution, such as Darwin’s finches or the peppered moths of Manchester, helps develop understanding of natural selection. Examining fossil evidence assists the student’s understanding of extinction as a natural process that has affected Earth’s species. ... Understand that microevolution, the adaptation of organisms - by changes in structure, function, or behavior - favors beneficial genetic variations and contributes to biological diversity.... Understand that natural selection acts only on the existing genetic code and adds no new genetic information. ... Selection (natural and artificial) provides the context in which to ask research questions and yields valuable applied answers, especially in agriculture and medicine. ... Biologists recognize that the primary mechanisms of genotypic change are natural selection and random genetic drift. Example: Natural selection includes the following concepts: 1) heritable variation exists in every species; 2) some heritable traits are more advantageous to reproduction and/or survival than are others; 3) there is a finite supply of resources required for life; not all progeny survive; 4) individuals with advantageous traits generally survive; 5) the advantageous traits increase in the population through time. "Experiences in grades 9-12 will allow all students to develop an understanding of the structure and function of the cell, the molecular basis of inheritance, biological evolution, interdependence and behavior of living things; and organization of living systems and uses of matter." "Experiences in grades 9-12 will allow all students to develop an understanding of the Earth system’s energy flow, actions and interactions of the Earth’s subsystems, the origin and evolution of the Earth system, and the origin and evolution of the universe." 2. Quotes showing that science has a faith in naturalism: “[I]f a living cell were to be made in the laboratory, it would not prove that nature followed the same pathway billions of years ago. But it is the job of science to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena.” (Science and Creationism, A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd Edition (1999), emphasis added) “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. ... The theory of evolution is one of these explanations.” (Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy Press, 1998, pg. 42, emphasis added) “It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent...[Darwin’s] mechanism, natural selection, excluded God as the explanation...” (Francisco Ayala [evolutionist scientist], “Darwin’s Revolution,” in Creative Evolution?!, eds. J. Campbell and J. Schopf (Boston, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1994), pp. 4-5, emphasis added) "Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural." (Richard E. Dickerson [evolutionist scientist]: "The Game of Science." Perspectives on Science and Faith (Volume 44, June 1992), p. 137, emphasis added) “Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.” (“Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought” E. Mayr [evolutionist scientist], Scientific American, pg. 82-83, (July 2000), emphasis added) “[F]or many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... [A]t some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may.” ("Nonliteralist Antievolution," Ruse, Michael [evolutionist philosopher of science], AAAS Symposium: "The New Antievolutionism," February, 1993, Boston, MA., emphasis added) "[W]e have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (Lewontin, Richard [evolutionist scientist], "Billions and Billions of Demons", New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28., emphasis added) “If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.” (Eldredge, Niles, 1982, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press) “…any statement concerning the existence, nonexistence, or nature of a creator or creators is not science by definition and has no place in scientific discussion.” (Pine, R.H., 1984, “But Some of Them Are Scientists, Aren’t They?” Creation/Evolution, Issue XIV, pp. 6-18) ------------------------------ Caveat: Note to Readers (4/9/05): On April 8, 2005, Dr. Berlinski stated on pandasthumb.org that he is not an ID proponent (he specifically stated that he couldn't be because "I do not support ID, or anything else, for that matter".) I was not aware this was his position, and I had listed Dr. Berlinski here when I originally wrote this article. It seemed eminently reasonable to assume he was an ID proponent when I first wrote this article due to Berlinski's contributions to ID-oriented literature alongside ID proponents in various books and other fora (for example, see his contributions to Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2004), and Mere Creation (InterVarsity, 1998). In the interests of accuracy and respect for Berlinski's views, it should be stated that Dr. Berlinski has now stated (on 4/8/05) that he is not an outright ID proponent because he considers himself "skeptical of everything" and thus could not be considered "pro-anything." Given personal scholarship in various pro-ID endeavors, I do not think it would be unfair to say, however, that he is far more skeptical of Darwinian evolution than he is of intelligent design. Sincerely, Casey [added 4/9/05] |  "Another attempt to deny evolution" by James Goldsborough |
