I’m well acquainted with the presence of the creationism/evolution debate in the classroom and in politics, but I never thought it would dare to bother computer science, Mecca of all things logical, provable and reproducible. Still, I read a blog post today that boiled my blood.
Scientists and mathematicians are more likely than the average to be atheists, or at least to choose evolution over creationism to explain what they see around them. This is for a very good reason. Excluding evolutionary biologists, for obvious reasons, scientists are used to seeing complex behaviour emerge from simple systems.
Take Conway’s Game of Life as a perfect example. With just four simple rules this cellular automaton throws up all sorts of complex, emergent behaviour, including several repeating patterns. If you regularly deal with such impressive output from simple rules, then it’s not much of a stretch to imagine monkeys turning into humans.
Simple rules minutely affect each and every iteration of a system, which over time creates huge, directed change. It’s a hard concept to grasp, but once you do, it’s easy to see its impact everywhere you look.
Computer scientists are more likely than most to come across this sort of behaviour, thanks to the field of artificial intelligence. In particular, those in one specific area of AI: the study of genetic algorithms. These algorithms solve incredibly difficult problems by mimicking natural evolution.
The way they work is incredibly simple; define a problem and the characteristics of an ideal solution, then set it running. That’s it.
The algorithm will take a set of randomly created solutions, compare them to the optimum, kill the poor performers and breed the better ones with each other. Throw in a little random mutation, and you’re all set. Within a few generations some staggering designs can emerge, sometimes so strange that no human engineer could ever have dreamed them up.
It sounds too good to be true, but it is. Demonstrably, reproducibly so. If at this point you’re sceptical, good, that’s a perfectly scientific attitude. Take a look at chapter 10 of this document, which runs through an extremely simple example.
It doesn’t just work for word games, though; so far it’s been used to design fusion reactors, create better load-balancing strategies in communications networks and NASA has even used it to develop more efficient antennae than was ever thought possible for a satellite. These things work, and are in use now, all around you.
Still, though, some people don’t believe it works. That’s understandable - if you’re an ardent believer in creationism, and a sceptic of evolution, then the field of genetic algorithms presents some interesting problems. You can throw the occasional spanner in the works of natural evolution, and the vast timescales involved make it easy to cast doubt on the theory for some, but seeing a computer evolve a perfect design in a matter of minutes is far harder to dismiss – even though it’s working in exactly the same way.
This brings me to the blog post that irritated me so much, written by Casey Luskin at Evolution News and Views. It criticises another article which details NASA’s fantastic work on the previously mentioned antennae.
“The presumption of evolutionary biologists, of course, is that these “brilliant designs” evolved by natural selection preserving random, but beneficial mutations. Engineers operating under such presumptions have thus tried to mimic not only the “brilliant designs,” but also the evolutionary processes that allegedly produced the designs,” says Luskin. “Did they use truly Darwinian “evolutionary computing?” The article goes on to discuss how design parameters were smuggled into the simulation, such that it really wasn’t a truly unguided Darwinian evolutionary scenario.”
Nothing was smuggled. The only things that the algorithm requires are details of the set of current solutions - analogous to a population of animals - and details of what an optimum solution will be like; low power use, highest efficiency, etc - which is analogous to the environment, weeding out poor solutions.
I had always hoped that genetic algorithms would help to convince evolution-sceptics to take a more thorough look at the evidence, but it seems that it’s just being added to the list of “incorrect” scientific theories. The problem is that the evidence is right there, routing your emails and phone calls, and whizzing above your head in orbit.
Tags: AI, algorithm, creationism, evolution, genetic
Permalink
November 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
You’ve got to remember that creationists are generally completely oblivious to reason - they will continue to cling to their beliefs no matter how much contrary evidence is presented to them.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I guess that the problem is that how the “design parameters were smuggled into the real-world” isn’t obvious if you don’t think about it. Therefore it looks like the parameters for the simulation are somehow cheating by being in addition. The key for the real world of course is that the solution results in more surviving than other solutions. The design parameter is simply a better chance of survival in this complex world.
November 27th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
It’s rubbish like that which persuaded me to make a fairly reasonable donation to the Atheist Bus campaign. My only regret is that my donation pushed A C Grayling off the high-score table on JustGiving (although now I’m pushed off there too).
November 27th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
As has been pointed out time and again by Prof Richard Dawkins, things in nature were not ‘designed’, they just have the complexity that makes things appear to have been designed. ‘Designoid’. Prompting the creationists to get on their soap boxes.
*NOT DESIGNED* got that!
It’s also high time we stopped carping on about A.I. It’s such a generalisation that it doesn’t have any real meaning. The popular press latched onto Alan Turing’s artificial brain idea in the late 1940s and has perpetuated ever since. This mirrors a similar craze that happened with Fritz Lang’s ‘Metropolis’.
There are some very hard problems which need to be solved, such as ‘acquired general experience’ which was attemped by Doug Lenat’s CYC project.
http://www.cyc.com/cyc/technology/whatiscyc_dir/whatsincyc
Neural networks, have had the most practical use *so far*, with face recognition, fingerprint identification and OCR.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Here goes absolutely nothing but as I creationist who has read further afield than Dawkins I have to say that this argument is unusally weak. To put forward as evidence the results of a computer (designed) and an algorithm (designed) and some controlling software (designed) and then to use this as proof of evolution has to be some sort of classic own goal. I am not at all surprised that the combination of a computer/complex algorithm and software is able to produce complex fascinating designs. What I do fail to see, and so far evolutionary biologists have still failed to proove is how these complex designs could be produced from nothing! If anything this strengthens the argument to design not evolution.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Jack: I don’t believe any respectable scientist has ever claimed that evolution produces complex designs from nothing. The process of evolution by natural selection merely tends to preserve naturally-occurring variations that prove beneficial while culling those that don’t. This results in the progressive adaptation of creatures to their environment, which eventually causes different communities to divide into separate species. Adaptations may involve increases in complexity (such as the mammalian eye) but they can equally be simplifications (such as the atrophying of legs in snakes). This is covered at length in Dawkins’ book The Blind Watchmaker (Norton, 1986).
November 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Darien: What you have described is micro evolution which is not something I nor any serious creationist has any difficulties with. What happens time and time again however and what Dawkins in particular is guilty off is then making the leap from Micro evolution to Macro evolution which at some point has to start with nothing and create something in order for micro evolution to develop. This is where the agrument moves from the area of empirical scientific experiements to theory and conjecture. This blog set it sights on creationists which is why I responded, the results of these experiments cause me no concern what does though is when the leap is made from this to creation and when that leap is made it is perfectly reasonable to ask how it is justified.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
That man Dawkins is an anus. He has the same attitude as hardcore creationists, except that he sits on the other side of the fence. Here is a man who has the self importance to claim that people who don’t hold his viewpoint, i.e. who are religious, are in some way mentally retarded. Inflammatory much?
Have a look at http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/10/agnostic_machinery.php to see why this whole religion versus science debate is just so much bunkum.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I have to agree with Phil. Richard Dawkins is just as bad as hardcore creationists. I am not a creationist, but I have always thought that evolution/creation are not mutually exclusive. Look at Genesis, if you take for granted that a ‘day’ to God could be more than 24 hours (may be billions of years), then the general order of creation follows that which is accepted by evolutionary science. I am quite happy to pitch my belief at somewhere between the two polarised opinions which seem to be the only ones mentioned. Having a creator god who progressively created all life and improves upon it over time is the most obvious solution and the most ridiculous at the same time. I just prefer to keep a mind open to multiple possibilities, rather than a closed mind to ideas (like Mr. Dawkins) which I feel is contrary to scientific/philosphical thought.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“I just prefer to keep a mind open to multiple possibilities, rather than a closed mind to ideas (like Mr. Dawkins) which I feel is contrary to scientific/philosphical thought.”
If you actually read Dawkins, his viewpoint is that he will admit that he is wrong IF creationists can provide some evidence to show that he is. This is not the same as the creationists’ viewpoint, which is that they are right and nothing will convince them otherwise.
Dawkins also writes that he cannot conclusively prove that there is no God, but the evidence available renders this extremely unlikely.
And Jack - as a creationist, how do you think the thing that created the universe (God, if you wish) came into being? Something capable of designing a universe would itself have to be vastly complicated and advanced.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I can see why Dawkins gets more than his fair share of abuse from people/groups that are equally hardcore in their beliefs. Science is Richard Dawkin’s religion, he maybe doing more harm to science by behaving just like the ones with an opposite belief system.
Why can’t they just accept their differences, and shut the hell up?
November 28th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Evolution deals with genetic material and life that already exists, not with the origin of life itself. There are several hypothesis which deal with the origin of life (e.g. abiogensis.) Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution that occurs over a long period of time. What makes you think, since we have observed several instances of evolution changing one species into another, it can not go further and make greater changes to the organism? Especially with all of the fossil evidence that we have accumulated over the years; not to mention the study of genetics, which completely supports all of the predictions made by evolution (e.g. common decent, phylogeny.) Evolution is a scientific fact, meaning that it has been observed (organisms changing), which is explained brilliantly with the theory of evolution (natural selection) - one of the strongest scientific theories that we have, which is at the base of all modern biology. If you want to be taken seriously in the scientific community, you have to do more than produce straw-man arguments “against” evolution; you have to actually produce evidence for an alternate theory, which does explanatory work and makes useful predictions. The theory must also account for all of the evidence that was previously explained by evolutionary theory. So far no other scientific theory has come to light that has done this. Please, humor all of the scientists who have actually done science, and at least understand a theory before you try to point out its weaknesses.
November 29th, 2008 at 7:24 am
I heard this analogy to explain the alleged dichotomy between macro and micro evolution: saying micro evolution can’t lead to macro evolution is like saying the same mechanism that moves you from your bed to your bathroom can’t get you from Paris to Berlin.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:23 am
I am a creationist and I have some questions:
Why are we here?
What?s our purpose in life?
Where did we come from?
What are the origins of life?
What happens after we die?
How can our problem of sin be solved?
From an evolutionary point of view, how can an unicellular or small multicellular organism propel itself if the flagellum hasn?t evolved?
If there was an oxygen?less atmosphere with the primeval soup, how could life originate or survive?
If parents are needed to seed new life, then without God creating the first life on Earth, how could the first life have come into existence? This is another reason why God must have been responsible for the creation of life on this Earth. Unless of course you can show me a creature that came into existence even though it never had any parents. Can you do that?
Certain creatures need lots of things to be present for them to function fully and without all those things being present they couldn?t function properly. Is that not a problem for the theory of evolution?
In regard to evolution:
How can really complicated organs develop by an unplanned process?
How did evolution from simple to complex counter the tendency towards randomness that is so prevalent in nature?
Is there any mechanism that would explain the origin of complexity?
Can one really identify the evolutionary relationships of organisms?
Are evolutionary changes gradual or sudden?
Is natural selection important to the evolutionary process?
How does complexity evolve without the advantage of foresight?
In terms of the fossil evidence, how does the evolutionary scenario deal with the great scarcity of intermediate forms and the lack of geologic time for the major evolutionary changes postulated?
Can you give examples of changes in organisms that have occurred by the addition of new information?
Is there available a scientifically observable process in nature which on a long-term basis is tending to carry its products upward to higher and higher levels of complexity?
Considering that DNA carries precise information regarding most aspects of plant life, how did the original DNA come to process these intricate instructions?
Considering there is no such thing as a simple cell, is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which ? a functional gene or protein ? is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?
Where does new information come from?
—-
Who or what provided the material for the big bang?
Why did it not implode rather that explode?
How could it coagulate into stars and how could these generate planets?
How could life appear spontaneously?
How could one kind of living creature change into another when the fossil record shows no evidence of such changes?
November 29th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Does the existence of Genetic Algorithms mean there are no Programmers? Does the Evolution of Artificial Intelligence over the decades mean there are no Designers? Surely I cannot be the only one who sees that you cannot use Examples of Design (Artificial Intelligence) to argue against Design in the Universe?
November 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Umm…
Obviously you can write, so that is enough evidence to prove that you must also be able to read.
Do the world a favour, go and discover the answers for yourself.
By deduction if necessary.
Believe nothing
question everything.
Find out for yourself.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Giraffes. must have been having a larf.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:31 am
David Bennet:
Your first set of questions are completely irrelevant to this discussion, but here’s a little food for your thought:
Does there *need* to be a high-level reason for life to exist? Perhaps life began by a chance meeting of chemicals, and evolved from the simple to the complex.
A note to all creationists: When talking of how life started, or to take it further, the beginning of the universe, you have as much evidence of your theory as scientists have of theirs. Were you there? If so, did you have a full 1080p digital video camera to prove you were? If not, who told you what happened, and why do you believe them?
About the no-oxygen atmosphere argument: as the environment evolved, so did the basic life-forms within it. Also note, the simpler the life-form the faster evolution can take effect.
Back to the argument at hand, David, some answers for your “in regard to evolution” questions:
1) By mutation in cell-division that provides a natural benefit. Note that our complex organs, according to evolution, did not start out by flopping around outside of bodies.
2) Randomness is not prevalent in nature. Creationists use this argument against evolutionists - “nothing happens without a cause”. If nature appears random to you, you’re not paying close enough attention to it.
3) See above.
4) If you spend years in genetic biology courses and work genetic sequencing, genetic engineering or the genome project, yes.
5) See above.
6) No. Evolution is important to the natural selection process.
7) See above, see Conway’s Game of Life, see antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
9) I forget the exact name of the species, something like the “spotted moth”. Also, antibiotic-resistant bacteria or superbugs.
10) According to evolution, which current scientific evidence fully supports, the changes you’re talking of (like bacteria to plant-life) happen over too long a time for anyone to observe in a lifetime. The technology is also pretty new (just like most of our technology), so any attempt to recreate this sort of evolution will take a looooong time.
11) By a series of chemical reactions on the basic amino acids. For a more detailed answer, become a biological engineer.
12) See above.
13) Environmental changes, even something as simple as one species migrating to the habitat of another species.
And once again, David, you go off-topic, but why not, let’s have some fun:
1) See above. We can only theorise; we can never know from scientific process, and religion only provides theories. A question for you: should the perceived answer to this question have any impact on how we live our lives today?
2) One theory is tt did one, then the other. Note that even black holes emit radiation, and when you compress matter/energy enough, it always tries to escape and expand.
3) I saw a fascinating documentary that answered this exact question. Start out with a bunch of extremely hyperactive particles in a tight space. Expand until they slow down and their collisions start producing things. Lather, rinse and repeat. There is also evidence that new stars are being formed from gaseous masses in our galaxy.
4) It didn’t (according to evolution). See above.
5) They do. See above.
There are no real tricks here. Many of your apparently independent and complex questions on evolution can be answered by the same thing. This is the beauty of science - as we progress through different and revised scientific theories and paradigms, more things make sense.
One example is the ancient Ptolemeic view of the universe, which though revised many times eventually proved inadequate to describe the full behaviour of celestial bodies. Geocentricism was then replaced with Heliocentrism to explain the construction of the solar system, which allowed the creation of accurate mechanical models of the solar system.
Likewise, the organised religions’ creationist theories are at odds with scientifically observable facts. As a result, creationists (in particular Christians) have tried to revise their theory to synchronise it with scientific evidence, e.g. the Creation Museum.
The goal of science is to find a theory that explains how real events works that needs no revision.
Finally, back to the original topic of the blog post, the “genetic algorithms” used in A.I. do not prove that evolution is true, they simply employ the principles of evolution and natural selection to great and positive effect. They are further evidence that evolution works, even within the paradigm of computer science, not to mention that computers once used to be the size of LARGE rooms and only had a handful of blinking lights, and now you can get ultra-portable laptops and PDA’s which are millions of times faster and more powerful. This didn’t happen suddenly! Sure, computers have always been designed, but each stage and generation of computing lead to the next.
Genetic algorithms are not even the first case of complicated results forming out of simple algorithms. For example, the Julia and Mandelbrot sets.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Sorceror:
Thanks for answering my questions. Just one more:
What do evolutionists base their morality on?
http://www.bethinking.org/suffering/intermediate/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god.htm
“But the problem becomes even worse. For, regardless of immortality, if there is no God, then there can be no objective standards of right and wrong. All we are confronted with is, in Jean-Paul Sartre’s words, the bare, valueless fact of existence. Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste or the by-products of socio-biological evolution and conditioning. In the words of one humanist philosopher, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion.”8 In a world without God, who is to say which values are right and which are wrong? Who is to judge that the values of Adolf Hitler are inferior to those of a saint? The concept of morality loses all meaning in a universe without God. As one contemporary atheistic ethicist points out, “to say that something is wrong because . . . it is forbidden by God, is . . . perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong . . . even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. . . .” “The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.”9 In a world without God, there can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments. This means that it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, and love as good. For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist—there is only the bare valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say you are right and I am wrong.”
November 30th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Getting back to the real topic. rolleyes.
The santa fe institute in california has been doing artificial life simulations for about 20yrs or so. FYI ‘Scaling, Universality, and Quantitative Laws of Life’
here: http://www.santafe.edu/research/topics-physics-complex-systems.php
November 30th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I’m not sure that evolution is the issue, rather the reason for evolution.
We surely can agree, by definition, that life forms that exist now have survived some development process that has excluded those life forms that were not able to survive. This is the result of evolution, whether by “design” or “accident”.
One side says they know the reason for evolution, the other says they know some of the reasons but want to know more.
November 30th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
There is no debate on creationism. Just lots of shouting from demented wackos.
November 30th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Fancy experimenting with genetic algorithms?
http://www.corewars.org/information.html
An explanation of binary genetics by John Barlow, UCLA
http://www.corewars.org/docs/evolving_warriors.html
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
I sympathise Mr Sparks, but when it comes to the evolution / creation debate (even what you’re simply talking about the mechanisms of evolution), the only certainty is that it’ll end in shouting and disillusion. I refer you to the words of a fictional doctor with a bad leg:
‘Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.’
December 4th, 2008 at 9:59 am
im no creationist.. but i do believe in intelligent design. unforunately the timescales required are preventative to plausible belief (see: accuracy of carbondating), the fossil record doesnt support a slow evolutionary process (micro) but would hint at macro evolution if an evolutionary process HAD to be suggested.
however, for macro evolution to work in the scenario you are suggesting, comparing it to AI, would require interaction of each instance of the genetic algorithm. “each genetic algorithm?” well…
what you are forgetting is that - this is not hitchikers guide to the galaxy, earth is not a supercomputer, and the answer is not 42.
you’re angry with someone sweeping aside a computer science theorem as being completely daft and inapplicable to life, the universe and everything.
which of course it is, because at no point is AI sentient. plus, ai requires a designer. you may argue around earth being a computer, and you could perhaps suggest (maybe even correctly) that ai designs give way to explain how evolution works in a practical way, but it is NOT a basis for a start-of-life explanation as the ai algorithm needed a designer (or a team of designers), not forgetting that the computer needed a designer.
really, what you’re saying is, “hey, evolution might work like this but dont analyse it too much because it still implies intelligent design”… even if you dont mean to, because probably - you didnt follow your reasoning through to logical conclusion.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:10 am
id also like to say, the tendency for evolutionists to denegrate those who believe in intelligent design as crazy folk with no valid argument…. thats just bad manners.
not only bad manners, but bad science.
what you’re doing if you do that, is presuming on the result before analysis of the facts.
yes, you think you have analysed the facts and come up with your own conclusion, but that doesnt mean that new information may sway your opinion.
not all creationists are wibbling idiots incapable of coming to an intelligent conclusion… in the same way that not all evolutionists are crazed self-powered megalomaniacs.
December 9th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Sweets, carbon-dating isn’t used to date fossils older than about 45,000 years old. There is hardly any carbon-14 left in them to date. There are several other dating methods that they use. And no, assuming that radio-active decay isn’t a bad assumption. Why wouldn’t you assume such a thing based on current observations? Several different dating methods must be used to determine the age of the object in question. When all of the methods point to the same conclusion, you have a pretty accurate representation of the age.
There is a continuum of change from one species to the next. We observe this today, and the fossil records show this as well. The many different transitional fossils that have been found lately add to the overwhelming evidence. Fossilization is pretty difficult; the set of conditions in which fossilization occurs makes it pretty rare. We would expect, under this finding, that we would not find every little change of the organisms. We find snapshots in time of different organisms at different stages of evolution. It is very neat that once we find one fossil, such as Odontochelys (a recently found turtle ancestor), we will know where to look and find its decedents and ancestors based on the dating of that strata. This is the same matter as the whale transitional fossils, which are what would we would call a “home-run” for verifying predictions made by evolutionary theory. The fossils are laid out in chronological order with obvious homologies.
It is not bad science to point out the flaws in someone else’s arguments; this goes for any field of science. Intelligent design is simply a weak, unscientific theory. Why would I waste my time on a “theory” that can not be falsified? Once you come up with reasonable predictions that can later be verified, and formulate a way in which it could be falsified, we can then test the predictions made by the theory. Everything seems to be explained pretty well in evolutionary theory, and most of the problems that ID advocates point out are actually misconceptions. Pointing out problems in another theory does not strengthen another. Theories stand on their own evidence. See my other post above for more information.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:53 am
http://www.ucg.org/booklets/GE/evidenceinsight.htm
Evidence in Plain Sight
In recent centuries philosophers have tried to answer the major questions about mankind’s existence and place in the universe. What approach have they taken?
Their fundamental premise has been that there is no God. Leaving no room for anything we cannot see, hear or feel, or measure through scientific methods, they have believed the answers could be found through human reason. Using man’s ability to reason, with its natural prejudice against God (see “Man’s Natural Hostility Toward God,” page 24), they concluded that the universe came from nothing, life evolved from inert matter, and reason itself is our best guide to finding our way.
In his recent book A Quest for God, historian Paul Johnson observes: “The existence or non-existence of God is the most important question we humans are ever asked to answer. If God does exist, and if in consequence we are called to another life when this one ends, a momentous set of consequences follows, which should affect every day, every moment almost, of our earthly existence. Our life then becomes a mere preparation for eternity and must be conducted throughout with our future in view” (1996, p. 1, emphasis added).
Can we really understand the answers to the most important questions of life without at least being willing to examine the question of the existence of God, who is described in the Bible as having given us life and having created us in His own image? (Genesis 1:26-27). Human reason, however, automatically dismisses the idea of God as the Creator who has a purpose for man and the universe. With that utter disregard for God have come unforeseen—and tragic—consequences.
Can we find solid evidence of God’s existence? If so, where do we look for it, and what is the nature of that evidence? What is our attitude toward the evidence, and how does that influence the way we live?
Evaluating the evidence
How does the evidence for God’s existence measure up to the evidence presented against it? How any evidence is weighed and evaluated is critical to the validity of any conclusions we reach on this most important matter. We must look at arguments for and against God’s existence without resorting to prejudiced premises or illogical conclusions.
Prejudice works both ways. Many people who believe in God’s existence feel compelled to defend their point of view in irrational ways. They hurt their cause by doing so. In like manner, many who believe there is no God refuse to give the evidence of His existence a fair hearing. In both instances, shallow prejudice is the real enemy.
Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology at Oxford University and an aggressive proponent of the theory of evolution, wrote The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. He sums up the atheistic view toward human origins and existence:
“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, nor foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker” (1986, p. 5, emphasis in original).
However, to avoid accepting uncomfortable evidence of God’s existence, he reasons, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (Dawkins, p. 1, emphasis added).
While admitting that living things give the appearance of purposeful design, Professor Dawkins does not consider the obvious—that, if they appear to have been designed, maybe they were designed.
Denying or recognizing the obvious?
Professor Dawkins’ backhanded acknowledgment that living organisms “overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker,” as he put it (p. 21), is not dismissed so lightly by many other scientists. They see the overwhelming presence of intricate design in the universe as a powerful indicator of an intelligent Designer.
A growing trend among researchers in biology, physics, astronomy, botany, chemistry and other major disciplines is study and debate over the complexity and orderliness they find at every level throughout the universe. Writers and scientists use the term anthropic principle to describe what, from all observations and appearances, are a universe and planet finely tuned for life—human life in particular.
Paul Davies, professor of mathematical physics at Australia’s University of Adelaide, summarizes the growing findings of scientists from many fields: “A long list of additional ‘lucky accidents’ and ‘coincidences’ has been compiled . . . Taken together, they provide impressive evidence that life as we know it depends very sensitively on the form of the laws of physics, and on some seemingly fortuitous accidents in the actual values that nature has chosen for various particle masses, force strengths, and so on . . .
“Suffice it to say that, if we could play God, and select values for these quantities at whim by twiddling a set of knobs, we would find that almost all knob settings would render the universe uninhabitable. In some cases it seems as if the different knobs have to be fine-tuned to enormous precision if the universe is to be such that life will flourish” (The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, 1992, pp. 199-200, emphasis added).
A world of design and purpose
Is our complex universe really the work of a blind watchmaker, as some contend? Is that what we view about us every day? Is life on earth simply the product of chance, with no purpose and planning, no control or consequences?
Accumulating evidence to the contrary is leading more and more scientists to question assumptions popular in scientific circles for years. Although few are willing to admit compelling evidence of God’s existence, many are admitting that everywhere they look they see evidence of a world that gives the appearance of intricate design down to the tiniest details (see “A Planet Perfect for Life”).
The Bible acknowledges the obvious when it presents us with an explanation of life quite different from that espoused by Professor Dawkins. It presents the universe as the handiwork of a Creator.
“Whence arises all the order and beauty we see in the world?” asked Sir Isaac Newton. The question is natural, and it was asked by a believing scientist who recognized the necessity of a cause for every effect. Actions have consequences. An intricately crafted universe points to an intelligent Designer.
Albert Einstein also marveled at the order and harmony he and his fellow scientists observed throughout the universe. He noted that the religious feeling of the scientist “takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection” (The Quotable Einstein, Alice Calaprice, editor, 1996, p. 151).
Martin Rees, professor of astronomy at Cambridge University, and science writer John Gribbin, discussing how finely tuned scientists have found the universe to be, note that “the conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity . . . Is the Universe tailor-made for man?” (Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology, 1989, p. 269, emphasis in original).
Professor Davies expressed it this way: “Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact. There must, it seems to me, be a deeper level of explanation. Whether one wishes to call that deeper level ‘God’ is a matter of taste and definition . . . [I] believe that we human beings are built into the scheme of things in a very basic way” (The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, p. 16).
No wonder British astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle says: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question” (Fred Heeren, Show Me God: What the Message From Space Is Telling Us About God, 1997, frontispiece, emphasis added).
The persistence of unbelief
Yet the belief stubbornly persists that God is not needed. Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould summarizes his atheistic viewpoint: “No intervening spirit watches lovingly over the affairs [of mankind]. No vital forces propel evolutionary change. And whatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of nature” (Darwin’s Legacy, Charles Hamrum, editor, 1983, pp. 6-7).
Supporters of evolution like to point out that acceptance of the idea of a divine Creator requires faith in someone or something we cannot see. Yet they are far from comfortable admitting that all who believe that life evolved from inert matter have faith in a theory that cannot be proven—and is founded on far more fragile evidence than that which supports the faith of believers in a Creator.
Evolutionists’ faith assumes that our unimaginably complex universe created itself or somehow came to exist from nothing. They firmly believe in a chain of circumstances that defies not only logic, but also fundamental laws of physics and biology. (For a closer look at the creation-evolution controversy, be sure to request your free copy of the booklet Creation or Evolution: Does It Matter What You Believe?)
Evolution has become, in a real sense, another religion. The faith of its followers is rooted in an unsubstantiated belief that the incredible universe, including the world around us teeming with an intricate variety of life, is the result of blind, random chance. It can offer no rational explanation for where the matter came from that made possible the universe and the supposed evolution of life.
Sidestepping the issue of where matter and the universe originated, proponents of evolution begin with an existing universe operating according to harmonious and predictable laws. They recognize that those laws exist and function flawlessly. Yet they haven’t the slightest idea of their origin. They choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that a great intelligence is behind these orderly and harmonious laws.
Our universe works like a giant watch. The last 40 years of space exploration has shown the precision of the universe. It is because of this predictability that NASA can rely on split-second timing when launching men into space and sending spacecraft to explore planets so far away that it sometimes takes years to reach them even at speeds of thousands of miles per hour.
Evidence of natural laws
Astonishingly precise physical laws govern the universe. As Einstein put it: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God” (The Quotable Einstein, p. 161).
Astronomers can predict with amazing precision when a comet will return to our sky. Scientists can send spacecraft to land on other planets or orbit bodies millions of miles away. The heavenly bodies move in a thoroughly predictable fashion.
On earth we can chart the position of stars and planets for any given day, month and year, forward or backward, with incredible accuracy. Calendars are useful because of the universe’s immutable laws. We can rely on the timing and position of the heavenly bodies because of the laws that govern their relationship. In a sense, the story of mankind is a story of our discovery of more and more of the laws that govern the cosmos.
For example, we experience the effects of the law of gravity. Though gravity is something we can’t see, we know it exists. We know that it functions consistently. It is one of the fundamental laws of the universe. Similar laws govern every aspect of the universe—laws of energy, motion, mass, matter and life itself.
What about evolution? Evolutionary theory holds that life arose from nonliving matter and over countless eons changed to form the astounding variety of life on earth.
That very concept is contrary to one of the most basic of all natural laws: the law of biogenesis. Throughout nature biogenesis is abundantly evident: Life can come only from existing life, just as your life was conceived by living parents. Evolutionists, of course, argue against this principle but can produce no concrete evidence to the contrary.
Evidence of a Grand Designer
Let’s get to the crux of the matter: Why do we find so many dependable, predictable, finely tuned laws governing our existence? What is their origin? Did life arise by chance, or is something larger at work? There must be an explanation for the existence of everything. The number, precision and perfection of natural laws cannot be explained away as an accident. Such reasoning is irrational.
Common sense tells us that the existence of an unimaginably magnificent universe structured on and sustained by innumerable laws of physics requires the existence of a Creator of those laws, a Designer of those structures.
Some of the clearest evidence of God’s existence is in the awesome presence of design in the universe. Australian scientist Paul Davies put it well in his book The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World:
“Human beings have always been awestruck by the subtlety, majesty, and intricate organization of the physical world. The march of the heavenly bodies across the sky, the rhythms of the seasons, the pattern of a snowflake, the myriads of living creatures so well adapted to their environment—all these things seem too well arranged to be a mindless accident. There is a natural tendency to attribute the elaborate order of the universe to the purposeful workings of a Deity” (p. 194).
Another writer who saw clear proof of creation all around him was King David. Looking into the heavens 3,000 years ago, he discerned that he was viewing the handiwork of the Creator and that we can discern much about Him by that handiwork: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4, New International Version).
The splendor of the night sky still moves us to wonder and awe. What are those tiny specks of light sparkling in the darkness of space? How did they get there? Why are they there? What lies beyond them in the unimaginable reaches of the universe? The grandeur of the shimmering heavens raises questions not just about the universe but about our part in it.
The same is true of the intricate patterns in all things on earth, not just the world we see around us but the unseen world we can explore only through microscopes.
A thousand years after King David expressed his awe at these marvels, the apostle Paul told Christians in Rome that “since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made . . .” (Romans 1:20, NIV).
The writers of the Bible recognized in the creation much evidence of a great, all-wise Creator. They understood that the wonders we see around us shout the same message: Such astonishing design demands a Master Designer! Whether we are moved by the power of the sea, the grandeur of a mountain range, the delicate beauty of the first spring flowers or the birth of a child, as we look at the world around us we naturally conclude: This is the handiwork of a great Designer.
Creation reveals the Creator
Wrote theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne, president of Queens College, Cambridge, and a member of Britain’s Royal Society: “The intellectual beauty of the order discovered by science is consistent with the physical world’s having behind it the mind of the divine Creator . . . The finely tuned balance built into the laws determining the very physical fabric of the universe is consistent with its fruitful history being the expression of divine purpose” (Serious Talk: Science and Religion in Dialogue, 1995, p. viii).
Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Pennsylvania’s Lehigh University, concluded from his intensive study of the cell, the basic building block of life, that such tremendous complexity can be explained only by the existence of an intelligent Designer:
“To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather they were planned. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed, then took steps to bring the systems about” (Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1996, p. 193, emphasis in original).
His conclusion: “Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent design” (ibid.).
The precision of our universe is not the result of an accident. It is the product of a meticulous Creator and Lawgiver, the universe’s Master Watchmaker.
December 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
Good job copying this from http://www.ucg.org/booklets/GE/evidenceinsight.htm
“Supporters of evolution like to point out that acceptance of the idea of a divine Creator requires faith in someone or something we cannot see. Yet they are far from comfortable admitting that all who believe that life evolved from inert matter have faith in a theory that cannot be proven?and is founded on far more fragile evidence than that which supports the faith of believers in a Creator.”
It is comical that someone would try to even claim that the evidence for evolution is fragile. It shows that the person arguing this point hasn’t looked at the strong evidence that has been accumulated over the last 150 years. Even if you do try to deduce a creator from our current observations, you still have all of your work cut out for you. The fact is: the “intelligent designer” you postulate is still very improbable, and not falsifiable by current scientific methods.
“Evolutionists? faith assumes that our unimaginably complex universe created itself or somehow came to exist from nothing.”
The use of “evolutionist” here is very confusing. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe or the beginning of life. You are trying to put many different fields of science under evolution, which is most definitely not the case. We are not claiming to “make stuff up” as we go along. We genuinely don’t know what happened before the big bang. Saying that it was created from nothing is a straw-man argument. We know that there was a great expansion approximately 13.73 billion years ago. We can look back, and based on current observations and evidence, we can try to determine the most probable explanation. Currently, scientists think that it started as a singularity, which, for an unknown reason, expanded. Replacing an intelligent designer for the unknown is very unhelpful. It is much more helpful to begin by postulating a probable, falsifiable cause.
”
They firmly believe in a chain of circumstances that defies not only logic, but also fundamental laws of physics and biology. (For a closer look at the creation-evolution controversy, be sure to request your free copy of the booklet Creation or Evolution: Does It Matter What You Believe?)
”
I would really like to know what this chain of logic is that is not consistent with physics and biology.
”
Evolution has become, in a real sense, another religion. The faith of its followers is rooted in an unsubstantiated belief that the incredible universe, including the world around us teeming with an intricate variety of life, is the result of blind, random chance. It can offer no rational explanation for where the matter came from that made possible the universe and the supposed evolution of life.
”
If evolutionary theory is a religion, then the theory of gravity is a religion. Your definition of religion is very vague. You definition of faith is also peculiar; scientists follow were the evidence takes them. The definition of faith is diametrically opposed to this method. Faith is believing something irregardless of the evidence.
You are creating a straw-man argument by saying that everything is the result of blind, random chance. The theory of evolution has little to do with chance. It is the non-random selection of random variation; meaning that the organism does not pass on its genes because it was unable to adapt under certain selection pressures. It is a fact that the organization of stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies are formed by the laws of physics and chemistry. These laws exist and function without the assumption of a designer.
”
What about evolution? Evolutionary theory holds that life arose from nonliving matter and over countless eons changed to form the astounding variety of life on earth.
That very concept is contrary to one of the most basic of all natural laws: the law of biogenesis. Throughout nature biogenesis is abundantly evident: Life can come only from existing life, just as your life was conceived by living parents. Evolutionists, of course, argue against this principle but can produce no concrete evidence to the contrary.
”
No, the fact of evolution is that organisms change over time (change in allele frequencies in a population over time), and the theory of evolution explains how this happens: natural selection. The “law of biogensis” is that, in modern organisms, life comes from life. Abiogensis is the current hypothesis, which life comes from non-life. It has been shown several times that it is possible. Scientists are currently exploring the possibility, which happens to be the most probable explanation.
”
The writers of the Bible recognized in the creation much evidence of a great, all-wise Creator. They understood that the wonders we see around us shout the same message: Such astonishing design demands a Master Designer! Whether we are moved by the power of the sea, the grandeur of a mountain range, the delicate beauty of the first spring flowers or the birth of a child, as we look at the world around us we naturally conclude: This is the handiwork of a great Designer.
”
The writers of the bible were people looking for a explanation for everything. They couldn’t think of a better explanation at the time than Yahwah. Their pre-scientific methods allowed their ideologies to be based on unfounded assertions. Their cognitive bias led them to attribute every occurrence to their god. The actual explanation is sometimes opposed to common sense. The fact that the earth rotates around the sun is a good example. We have since replaced these wild assertions with explanations based on evidence.
Things that look designed, don’t necessarily have to be designed by someone. From a scientific viewpoint, life would be designed by the effects of evolution. The landscape designed by physics and chemistry. Why do these conclusions, based on science, demean the grandeur of it all to you?
“”"
?To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity; rather they were planned. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed, then took steps to bring the systems about? (Darwin?s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1996, p. 193, emphasis in original).”
“”"
It is interesting that every single biological system that Behe put forward, which he claimed was irreducibly complex, have all been refuted. With hindsight from this conclusion, we can see his wishful thinking bleed through. From the Dover trial, we came to the conclusion that ID was shrouded in religion and mysticism, not scientific inquiry. Behe’s standards became quite evidence when he stated that astrology was a scientific theory. This is why ID is not taken seriously by the scientific community. It fails to survive even a moments scrutiny.
Religion is faith based, which means that regardless of the evidence, belief will still remain. If you start trying to find evidence to support your belief, you have already deviated from the scientific methods. This is antithetical to scientific inquiry, where evidence can change the scientific consensus. The strength and beauty of science is that it is able to adapt and strengthen as new information is discovered.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
http://www.request.org.uk/issues/evidence/evidence01.htm
1. God in Creation
1.1 Just Right For Us (The ‘Anthropic Principle’)
The first kind of evidence we are considering is the evidence in the natural world. Who is not amazed when they look up at the stars? The Bible says:
‘The heavens tell of the glory of God. The skies display his marvellous craftsmanship’ 1
God has created a universe that carries His ’signature’. We can see this signature in the wonderful order of creation.
We might think that the evidence in creation is not so persuasive these days. Perhaps we are all here because of the Big Bang, or a long process of blind chance? But in recent years scientists have been surprised to discover many unexpected ways that the universe is ‘just right’ for us to live in. For example, if the forces inside the nucleus of atoms were slightly different, either there would be no hydrogen atoms at all or else the universe would be nothing but hydrogen atoms. Either way, you and I would not be here. If the electromagnetic forces inside atoms were just a tiny fraction different, the various kinds of atoms needed for life could not exist, and our lives would be impossible. If the speed of light was either slightly more, or slightly less than it is … well - you get the idea. One author lists more than twenty such remarkable ‘coincidences’ in the way the universe is made. The chance of all these things being ‘just right’ for us is much less than the chance of the same person winning the lottery not just once, but ten times in a row.
Scientists call this the ‘anthropic principle’, and they are struggling to know what to make of this. An article in New Scientist magazine says,
‘The Universe we live in seems to be a very unlikely place. Random processes and statistical fluctuations could easily have made it quite inhospitable to life.’
This article goes on to ask, ‘Are we just lucky? Or is there some deep significance to the fact that we live in a universe just right for us?’
With all that scientists are discovering, surely it would take more faith to be an atheist than to believe that the universe was designed by a powerful, wise, and loving God?
Of course, scientists have tried to come up with other explanations of the anthropic principle. For example, they say that any universe that we can observe has to be the way this one is, otherwise we could not be here to observe it. Alternatively, they talk about many parallel universes, in which we just happen to live in the one where human life is possible. However, these kinds of explanations are pure speculation - there isn’t any evidence for them, and in the nature of things, there never can be. Some of them sound more like science fiction than reality.
The Bible says:
‘From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and the sky and all that God made. They can clearly see His invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.’ 2
This is as true today as it ever has been - in some ways, with the discovery of the anthropic principle, it is more true now than ever before. So the first kind of evidence that we have is the creation itself - a universe that carries God’s signature - a universe ‘just right’ for us to live in.
http://www.request.org.uk/issues/evidence/evidence02.htm
1.2 ‘Irreducible Complexity’
The theory of Evolution was first widely popularised and given a plausible mechanism in Charles Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ (1859). We can think of evolution as the mechanism by which all the different forms of life arose from non-living matter, by natural processes.
Over the past hundred and forty years, it has often been argued that evolution can explain the origins of life, including human life, without resorting to belief in a designer or creator. Thus the theory of evolution (which is supposedly a scientific theory capable of being proved or disproved by evidence) has often been co-opted as an argument against faith in God.
Michael Behe is professor of Biochemistry at Leigh University in the USA. His recent book, ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ challenges received orthodoxy about evolution at the biochemical level. Behe uses ‘black box’ as a term for something that looks simple from the outside, but its inner workings - how it does what it does - are mysterious or unknown.
Behe says that in Darwin’s day, the cell was a black box. The technology just did not exist then to answer questions about how life worked at the biochemical level.
He says that for more than a hundred years, the academic establishment has overwhelmingly accepted Darwin’s proposal that life can be explained in terms of natural selection working on random variations, even though the basic mechanisms of life were a black box. However, in recent years, scientists have come to understand much more about how life works at the biochemical level, and the result is a challenge to Darwin’s theory.
In the past, Behe says, scientists assumed that the biochemical basis of life was very simple. But the more they have discovered, the more complicated it proves to be. The result of discoveries in biochemistry since the 1950s is to show that life is based on complicated molecular machines. Behe says that for Darwin’s theory of evolution to be true, it has to be able to account for the molecular structure of life - and the purpose of his book is to show that the theory can’t do this.
Behe has identified a number of biochemical systems that he says are ‘irreducibly complex’. An irreducibly complex system is one made of well matched interacting parts that all contribute to the basic function. Take any one of them away, and the whole system stops working. A mouse-trap is an example of an irreducibly complex system - if you take any single part away, the trap doesn’t work, and the mouse escapes. Behe says that such irreducibly complex biochemical systems could not be formed by a series of small changes, because the intermediate systems wouldn’t work.
In his book, Behe gives a number of examples worked out in detail, including the mechanism of blood clotting, cellular transport mechanisms, antibody defence against disease, and the cilium - a whip-like structure that some cells use to swim with.
How could such complex biochemical systems have been produced gradually? What are the intermediate stages by which they might have developed and how could they have moved from one stage to another? According to Behe, there are no answers. There is, he says, ‘an eerie silence’ in the scientific literature about how such biochemical machines developed. There are no academic papers showing how such complex biochemical systems could have evolved by a series of small random changes.
Behe’s argument is that the existence of irreducibly complex systems is evidence for design in nature. The result of massive efforts by biochemists to investigate life at the molecular level is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’ He goes on to say that the conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself, and not from what he calls ’sacred books or sectarian beliefs.’
It is important to note that the argument from irreducible complexity is not the same as an argument that evolution does not happen. (Of course, Christians remain deeply divided between a literal ‘Creationist’ understanding of Genesis and a metaphorical ‘theistic evolution’ understanding.) Rather, this is an argument that whether or not evolution happens, intelligent design is needed to account for the way we are made. The irreducible complexity argument is an argument against the kind of un-directed, random evolution that has so often been used to rule out belief in a designer and creator.
It is also important to understand that, whereas the anthropic principle is widely recognised by cosmologists and physicists, the argument from irreducible complexity is largely the work of one man, and has not found wide acceptance by biologists and biochemists.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
“”"
With all that scientists are discovering, surely it would take more faith to be an atheist than to believe that the universe was designed by a powerful, wise, and loving God?
Of course, scientists have tried to come up with other explanations of the anthropic principle. For example, they say that any universe that we can observe has to be the way this one is, otherwise we could not be here to observe it. Alternatively, they talk about many parallel universes, in which we just happen to live in the one where human life is possible. However, these kinds of explanations are pure speculation - there isn’t any evidence for them, and in the nature of things, there never can be. Some of them sound more like science fiction than reality.
“”"
Actually, atheism doesn’t imply more than a non-belief, which I have concluded that we have no evidence for. By logic and reason we can figure the probability of the existence of a creator. An unnecessary assumption indeed. Saying that you need faith to not believe in an unnecessary assumption is a little silly. The evidence that scientists are finding does not necessarily provide direct evidence for any kind of god. Spinning evidence to match your religious faith is disingenuous.
Actually the multiverse hypothesis explains what we see in quantum mechanics. It is true that this explanation is incredibly wasteful and scientists are still trying to find more evidence to support it, but it is not just speculation; the reason someone proposed such a hypothesis is because it is based on our current observations in quantum mechanics. We don’t currently have the answer for this, but scientists are working hard to find the answer. Saying that there can never be evidence for something is based on a lack of imagination and an argument from personal incredulity. Interestingly the WMAP cold spot has been proposed as evidence for the multiverse hypothesis, but that may the the tip of the ice-burg. For the last statement, all I can say is: quantum mechanics sometimes sounds more like science fiction than anything, but it works beautifully. Saying such a thing does not discredit a well established field.
“”"
In his book, Behe gives a number of examples worked out in detail, including the mechanism of blood clotting, cellular transport mechanisms, antibody defense against disease, and the cilium - a whip-like structure that some cells use to swim with.
“”"
I am not really going to say anything more about irreducible complexity. It is just an extreme example of the argument from personal incredulity. Claiming a problem unsolvable is not doing science, and it is definitely not helping to try to solve these problems. All of these problems proposed by Behe have been shown to have evolutionary explanations. Please see Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God” or Richard Dawkins “The Ancestor’s Tale”. For that matter, just look for peer reviewed articles. The search for knowledge will probably never be over; you are retarding the process by claiming something to be unsolvable.
To conclude, if anything was ever found to be irreducibly complex, it is in no way evidence for the existence of a god or intelligent design. It would only provide problems for evolutionary theory and common decent. Based on the current evidence, there would be a lot of explaining to do, which is already beautifully explained under evolution. If this was indeed the case, back to the drawing board we go.
December 22nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
http://www.icr.org/article/3961/
The Origin of Flight
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*
Evolution has many steep obstacles to overcome. Many are the stupendous design characteristics and environmental balances that can scarcely be understood by today’s scientists, let alone mimicked. Yet evolution must work alone with random mutations (usually harmful and therefore discarded) and unthinking natural selection, which cannot see the future or do anything novel on its own. Beneficial mutations (if there are any) can perhaps be selected naturally for survival and enhanced reproductive success, but the elegance of design on display in nature stuns us. Is it credible to rely on such ineffective and inefficient methods to produce all we see?
One of evolution’s greatest challenges is the origin of flight. Each flying creature seems specifically designed to do just that and only that. There’s nothing random or unthinking about it.
According to evolution, flight was achieved on several occasions. Happening once is highly unlikely. Happening multiple times–how can they assert this and maintain a straight face?
Flight was supposedly first achieved by insects. The insects are classed as arthropods, as are the many invertebrate animals in the sea. Along the way, insects gained many wonderful adaptations to fit them for life on the land, thus only some of them took to the air. Yet the wide variety and abilities of flying insects continue to astound those who try to catalog them. From the delicate butterfly, to the aggressive dragonfly, to the filthy housefly, to the irritating gnats, etc., all exhibit precise design characteristics quite different from each other, yet bear little evidence of relationship to any other insects. Both living specimens and fossil specimens are easily identified, appear designed to do what they do, and show neither transitional forms among themselves nor with non-flying insects. They testify for purposeful creation, not random evolution.
The flying reptiles are likewise separate and distinct from all other reptiles, yet from the earliest time their fossils are seen (read: lowest in the strata column), they display all the design traits which characterize them. There are two basic types of flying reptiles, and they are fully distinct from each other and lacking any fossil evidence that they evolved from some other type. They seem to have been created to be flying reptiles only, and created precisely with that goal in mind by an intelligent Creator.
The birds are not thought to have evolved from flying reptiles, but from ground-dwelling or tree-climbing reptiles. Birds fill diverse ecological niches and accomplish numerous necessary purposes, all the while filling the air with song and beauty.
The marvels of bird flight seemingly testify to intelligent aerodynamic engineering. The feathers, the wings, the hollow bones, the sternum, the flight muscles, etc.–all are designed specifically for flight. This suite of features is only useful for flight, and yet each is necessary for any of them to accomplish their intended purpose. Random mutation and natural selection would be hard pressed to accomplish something like this.
Mammals, too, can fly, or at least some of them. Bats exhibit many unique design features, including wing design and radar. Their radar signal and receivers even supplied the model from which design engineers got their idea for the use of radar today. Bats accomplish several necessary tasks, including keeping insect populations in check, without which our lives would be difficult. And bat fossils are 100 percent bat. No evolution here!
And that’s the point. The evidence does not uniquely point to evolution. The person who says all life came from a common ancestor through “descent with modification” must not have studied living things very carefully. The whole evolution story can best be understood as an attempt to provide scientific support for a life lived without accountability to a Creator God.
The Origin of Flight
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.*
Evolution has many steep obstacles to overcome. Many are the stupendous design characteristics and environmental balances that can scarcely be understood by today’s scientists, let alone mimicked. Yet evolution must work alone with random mutations (usually harmful and therefore discarded) and unthinking natural selection, which cannot see the future or do anything novel on its own. Beneficial mutations (if there are any) can perhaps be selected naturally for survival and enhanced reproductive success, but the elegance of design on display in nature stuns us. Is it credible to rely on such ineffective and inefficient methods to produce all we see?
One of evolution’s greatest challenges is the origin of flight. Each flying creature seems specifically designed to do just that and only that. There’s nothing random or unthinking about it.
According to evolution, flight was achieved on several occasions. Happening once is highly unlikely. Happening multiple times–how can they assert this and maintain a straight face?
Flight was supposedly first achieved by insects. The insects are classed as arthropods, as are the many invertebrate animals in the sea. Along the way, insects gained many wonderful adaptations to fit them for life on the land, thus only some of them took to the air. Yet the wide variety and abilities of flying insects continue to astound those who try to catalog them. From the delicate butterfly, to the aggressive dragonfly, to the filthy housefly, to the irritating gnats, etc., all exhibit precise design characteristics quite different from each other, yet bear little evidence of relationship to any other insects. Both living specimens and fossil specimens are easily identified, appear designed to do what they do, and show neither transitional forms among themselves nor with non-flying insects. They testify for purposeful creation, not random evolution.
The flying reptiles are likewise separate and distinct from all other reptiles, yet from the earliest time their fossils are seen (read: lowest in the strata column), they display all the design traits which characterize them. There are two basic types of flying reptiles, and they are fully distinct from each other and lacking any fossil evidence that they evolved from some other type. They seem to have been created to be flying reptiles only, and created precisely with that goal in mind by an intelligent Creator.
The birds are not thought to have evolved from flying reptiles, but from ground-dwelling or tree-climbing reptiles. Birds fill diverse ecological niches and accomplish numerous necessary purposes, all the while filling the air with song and beauty.
The marvels of bird flight seemingly testify to intelligent aerodynamic engineering. The feathers, the wings, the hollow bones, the sternum, the flight muscles, etc.–all are designed specifically for flight. This suite of features is only useful for flight, and yet each is necessary for any of them to accomplish their intended purpose. Random mutation and natural selection would be hard pressed to accomplish something like this.
Mammals, too, can fly, or at least some of them. Bats exhibit many unique design features, including wing design and radar. Their radar signal and receivers even supplied the model from which design engineers got their idea for the use of radar today. Bats accomplish several necessary tasks, including keeping insect populations in check, without which our lives would be difficult. And bat fossils are 100 percent bat. No evolution here!
And that’s the point. The evidence does not uniquely point to evolution. The person who says all life came from a common ancestor through “descent with modification” must not have studied living things very carefully. The whole evolution story can best be understood as an attempt to provide scientific support for a life lived without accountability to a Creator God.
http://www.icr.org/article/3962/
The Amazing Design of the Human Nose
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Besides adding distinction to the human face, the nose is an amazingly complex instrument. The insides of our noses are not just straight hollow tubes, but are shaped specifically to regulate airflow. A smooth bony constriction in the front has a smaller diameter than a human finger. This both protects the soft inner tissue from errant fingers and may act as a de Laval nozzle,1 increasing airspeed inside the nasal chamber.
Three curved plates called conchae intrude into each nasal passageway, one stacked upon the other. Made of thin bones shaped like crashing waves, the lower and middle conchae are larger and longer than the upper concha and process most of the air passing through. The shapes of the air passages between these bones induce a laminar (orderly, streamlined) airflow pattern, thus reducing turbulence. The middle and lower passages are curved in three dimensions–vertically they curl in a semicircle, lengthwise they curve downward toward the trachea, and widthwise they are convex.
Attached to the conchae is expandable soft tissue that can congest the nasal passages or contract to open them. This is covered by a special skin designed to capture debris with small hairlike projections and a layer of mucus, thus protecting sensitive lung tissue. Our noses regulate airflow direction, humidification, heating, and immune functions by partnering with the lymphatic system.
In 2005, Dr. Denis Doorly of Imperial College, London, built and tested airflow through a see-through model of the nose. He concluded that “airflow in the nose is not simply laminar or turbulent.”2 Is the fact that our noses produce some turbulent (”disordered”) airflow an indication of poor design? Interestingly, the turbulence causes eddies to waft upward, allowing controlled puffs of air into the narrow space above the upper concha where the sensitive olfactory nerves are located. Much of our sense of smell depends on this unique airflow pattern. Most of the air is not wafted up, but jetted down. It is likely that this flow rate is increased by the downward curvature of the conchae, which may utilize the Coanda effect. This effect can be demonstrated by observing how fluid speeds up as it runs down the back of a vertically held spoon.
The same principles utilized by our noses are being considered by engineers in their quest to build more efficient machines. For example, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner is currently in production and promises to operate 20 percent more efficiently than the similarly-sized 767 (a 1982 product).3
As good as that sounds, an even more efficient airplane is being designed by scientists with the Silent Aircraft Initiative.4 The SAX40 will look like a giant manta ray, with wide wings attached to a wedge-shaped body. CNN reported that “the team found that the same technological changes that make craft quieter also make them more fuel-efficient.”5 If human noses did not have conchae, turbulent air would rush right next to our ears, making life miserably noisy.
Increasingly, scientists are more closely examining nature to gain inspiration for new technologies. Evolutionary thinking would have us believe that nasal conchae developed over time through natural selection. However, there is no clear progression of fossilized transitional conchae to back up this claim; only fully-formed noses are in the rock record. There is not even a theoretically realistic mechanism that nature could implement–assuming a non-intelligent, non-volitional entity like the universe could implement anything at all–to generate such complex features. When we examine the nose, we can join Job in exclaiming, “Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?”6
http://www.geocities.com/lamb_of_god_2005/no_evolution.html
Reason # 40: In conclusion, all you have to do is look up at the sky and see the billions of stars and the universe circulating in intracate precision to know you were “designed” by God. This universe is infinetly complex. Just take the Earth for example, it is very complex and unique. The earth is the precise distance from the sun. If it was much closer it would fry and if it was much farther it would freeze. If you made a map of the universe and nine inches represented the distance from the earth to the sun the map would be over forty miles long to chart the next closest star, Alpha Centauri. But that was just a product of “chance” after the Big Bang. Yeah right. The earth is unique because it is the only planet with a 23.5-degree tilt on its axis. If that were not so the middle would fry and the poles would accumulate huge masses of ice. The earth is the only planet with abundance of water. Water and Bismuth are the only two elements that are heavier at four degrees Celcius then they are a freezing. If this was not so all the lakes, rivers, ponds, etc, would freeze from the bottom up and kill all the fish. Consider the moon, if it was ever deflected from its orbit life would cease to exist. The moon is a maid to clean up the oceans. The tides that the moon produces areate the oceans, keep it clean, and supply oxygen for the plankton which is the foundation of the food chain. No other atmosphere is like earth’s. Our atmosphere consists of approx. 81 % nitrogen, 18 % oxygen, and 1 % of a dozen trace elements. No other atmosphere is even close to this. These elements are NOT mixed chemically but are mechanically intermingled by the moon’s tidal effect upon the atmosphere. Mankind dumps an enormous amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it is absorbed into the ocean. If this were not so the human race would cease to exist. Consider the unique cloud cover of earth. At any given time the earth’s surface is 50 % covered by clouds which lets just the right amount of sunshine in. If earth had cloud cover like Venus life would cease to exist. (The cloud cover of Venus is several miles thick) Consider the amazing nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen is extremely inert, if it wasn’t we would all be poisoned by it. However, because of its inertness, it is impossible to get it to combine natrually with other things. But plants need it in the ground for their survival. How does God provide nitrogen for the plants? He does it by lightning. 100,000 lightning bolts strike earth daily, creating 100,000,000 tons of useable nitrogen plant food in the soil every year. Just consider these points and many others and you will see how God has shown His handiwork (Psalm 19:1) to us. He has provided many amazing things for us to know that He designed the universe. Just consider how complex and amazing this world of ours is. It is not the product of evolution or any other “chance” happenstance. You and everything else around you was designed by God.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1980
CONCLUSION
Scientifically, the choice is between matter only and more than matter as the fundamental explanation for the existence and orderliness of the Universe. The difference, therefore, between the evolution model and the creation model is the difference between: (a) time, chance, and the inherent properties of matter; or (b) design, creation, and the irreducible properties of organization. In fact, when it comes to any particular case, there are again only two scientific explanations for the origin of the order that characterizes the Universe and life in the Universe: either the order was imposed on matter, or it resides within matter. However, if it is suggested that the order resides within matter, we respond by saying that we certainly have not seen the evidence of such. The creation model not only is plausible, but also is the only one that postulates an adequate cause for the Universe and life in that Universe. The evolution model cannot, and does not. The evidence speaks clearly to the existence of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent Mind that created this Universe and everything within it.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
“”"
According to evolution, flight was achieved on several occasions. Happening once is highly unlikely. Happening multiple times–how can they assert this and maintain a straight face?
“”"
Why can’t scientists keep a straight face in this case? If an adaptation is advantageous (e.g eyes, ears, flight) we are likely to see it appear independently many times. In the case of the eye, we have seen multiple independent instances of it evolving. It is not very hard to see the advantage of half a wing or half an eye. An underdeveloped wing could still slow the fall from great heights to prevent injury. We also see partially developed wingoids in flying squirrels and other gliding animals.
Logically how do you go from co-evolution to a complex creator? This is where your thinking goes wrong. You assert the existence of a creator, and proceed to skip every other probable explanation. The weight of evidence is not met when it comes to the extraordinary claim of a creator.
After all of the modern discoveries in science, the teleological argument doesn’t really work. We have discovered the best explanation for life and the cosmos without the assumption or need of a creator. The creator has been pushed back to the potentially unfalsifiable prime mover. Why lay the baggage that comes with a god onto that explanation; we haven’t even extensively explored the possibility of an energy fluctuation initiating the expansion of the universe.
It seems that the ID arguments have to try to explain away some of our best science to remain relevant. The proponents have to cover their ears and say “la-la-la-la” when a new transitional fossil is found, or more evidence is found to increase our understand of the nature of the cosmos.
Currently the ID movement fits in the unknown or little known parts of scientific understanding. The god of the gaps strategy will only fool the most credulous believer. Scientists love mystery because it gives them something to do. The unknown becomes known as we research and find probable explanations. When the gaps are filled, creationism will fall into other areas. Recently, as was mentioned before, Behe tried to exploit the biochemical gaps in the evolutionary explanation; but when those were researched, it was found to have a perfectly good explanation within evolutionary theory. As the pattern goes, proponents of Behe’s assertions will deny the facts because of the implications on their beliefs.
Looking at science through god colored glasses will only lead to fallible conclusions. Looking at evolution with the assumption of the existence of a creator will only lead you to believe that a complex creator started all of this. Even the believing scientist knows that this is an unnecessary assumption, but their religious faith partitioned mind allows this fallacy to persist. Try to look at science as if religion never existed. Can you find a reason(based on the facts) that you would come to the conclusion that an all powerful, complex, omnipresent god created everything? Doing so would strip the assumption of a creator, and allow you to see science without this bias. The assumption that the world has no creator is neutral, not a positive assertion.
Before you post any other silly straw man arguments and misconceptions, please read the counter-creationism handbook. It dissects 400 common creationist misconceptions, and shows the actual current scientific consensus about the topics.
March 21st, 2009 at 4:28 am
dependable auto transport…
I never thought I will agree with this opinion, but you know… I agree partially now…