Some people think it's important to define your terms before engaging in a debate. I am one of them and the term that most often leads to confusion is "evolution."
Let's look at an example. Ned Bowden is a chemistry professor at the University of Iowa. He published an article in the university magazine: Common ground: A case for ending the animosity between science and religion. Bowden said ...
It’s remarkably consistent how evolution and Genesis look at the process and tell the same stories using different words. Science can never prove or disprove God, but science can provide support for the existence of God and that is what the Big Bang and evolution can give us. There are, of course, holes in the theory of evolution that are big enough to drive a semi-truck through, but it is highly possible that evolution was the tool that God used to bring humans into being.
The Christians must be getting worried about all those atheist signs popping up on buses and billboards. Ken Ham and "Answers in Genesis" decided to strike back by hosting a 16 second video on an electronic billboard in Times Square, New York.
Watch the video if you dare.
I'm thinking that Young Earth Creationism and Christian fundamentalism aren't going to resonate too well with the average person in Times Square. This kind of publicity could really backfire by drawing attention to the large number of atheists in America.
Would this sort of thing ever have happened without Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris and all those other obnoxious and disrespectful atheists who started making such a fuss just a few years ago? I think we're finally making progress and it's mostly due to them.
I've been having a discussion with Elizabeth Liddle in the comments to: Barry Arrington, Junk DNA, and Why We Call Them Idiots . I think it's important to understand why scientists first started thinking that most of our genome is junk. It's important to understand that these scientists were not Darwinists and their predictions were not based on an understanding of natural selection.
Let's look at a famous paper by Jack Lester King and Thomas Hughes Jukes.1 The title of the paper is "Non-Darwinian Evolution" and it was published 44 years ago in the May 16, 1969 issue of Science [read it at: Science 164:788-798].
The subtitle of the paper is "Most evolutionary change in proteins may be due to neutral mutations and genetic drift" but that's not what I want to talk about. This paper is among the first to predict the presence of large amounts of junk DNA in our genome. King and Jukes didn't call it "junk"—that term was introduced by Susumu Ohno in 1972—but that doesn't matter. When King and Jukes talk about "superfluous DNA" they mean "junk."
Here's the relevant part of the paper ...
Last week's molecule was α-tocopherol or vitamin E. You do not need vitamin E supplements and they may even be harmful. Lots of people got it right. The winner was Susan Heaphy [Monday's Molecule #217].
This is the week of Nobel Prize announcements so I've chosen an appropriate molecule. It is very complicated. So complicated, in fact, that there was a Nobel Prize for solving its structure. Name the molecule, the winner of the Nobel Prize, and the year it was awarded. You must get all three answers correct.
Email your answers to me at: Monday's Molecule #218. I'll hold off posting your answers for at least 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post the names of people with mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your email message.)
Dr. Azor Betts (1740-1809) is a distant cousin of mine. His mother was Mary Beldon and I descend from another Mary Beldon who is a cousin of Dr. Azor Betts' mother. Our common ancestor is William Belden (1609-1655) of Wethersfield, Connecticut.
Dr. Betts' father was Nathan Betts and I'm also related to him through my ancestor Tama Betts (1754 - ).
Dr. Azor Betts was a physician in New York city at the beginning of the American Revolution in 1776. At the time there was a smallpox epidemic in the city and other parts of the colonies. George Washington had issued an order that no soldier of the Continental Army should be inoculated. In spite of this order Dr. Betts inoculated several officers at their urging.
The General presents his Compliments to the Honorable The Provincial Congress, and General Committee, is much obliged to them, for their Care, in endeavoring to prevent the spreading of the Small-pox (by Inoculation or any other way) in this City, or in the Continental Army, which might prove fatal to the army, if allowed of, at this critical time, when there is reason to expect thay may soon be called to action; and orders that the Officers take the strictest care, to examine into the state of their respective Corps, and thereby prevent Inoculation amongst them; which, if any Soldier should presume upon, he must expect the severst punishment.
Any Officer in the Continental Army, who shall suffer himself to be inoculated, will be cashiered and turned out of the army, and have his name published in the News papers throughout the Continent, as an Enemy and Traitor to his Country.
Upon the first appearance of any eruption, the Officer discovering of it in any Soldiers, is to give information to the Regimental Surgeon, and the Surgeon make report of the same, to the Director General of the hospital.
Dr. Azor Betts continued to give inoculations to officers of the Continental Army so he was arrested and imprisoned. He was freed when the British took over New York and the Continental Army retreated to New Jersey.
Dr. Betts became an officer in the Kings American Regiment (a Loyalist regiment) and later on was a surgeon in the Queen's Rangers. At the end of the war he moved his family to New Brunswick (Canada) and then to Nova Scotia where many of his descendants still live.
There are many ways to teach biochemistry. You can focus on the chemistry or emphasize biology. You can teach from a fuel metabolism perspective or you can teach to the MCAT. You can even teach biochemistry from an evolution perspective.
But here's one I'm not familiar with: The Science of ID: Biochemistry.
Maybe I'll give it a try.
Some of us spend a lifetime trying to understand evolution. We read books, go to meetings, study the scientific literature, and consult experts. It's a difficult subject.
Gil Dodgen is a software engineer who wrote a program that plays checkers. He also plays the piano quite well. He didn't struggle at all over the concept of evolution [Philosophical Repugnancy].
For me, despite 43 years of indoctrination in atheistic materialism and Darwinian orthodoxy, it was a very simple logical exercise to conclude that living systems are the product of intelligent design.
The simplest living cell includes highly sophisticated, functionally integrated information-processing machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms and their implementation.
The notion that random errors, whether filtered by natural selection or not, can produce such technology, is a transparently absurd proposition.
It’s really just that simple.
A few nights ago, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins had an intimate conversation in front of one thousand people at Northwestern University. It was moderated by Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist).
I would dearly loved to have been there. I greatly admire all three men. Watch this clip to see Richard Dawkins at his best. You don't have to agree with everything he says (I don't) but you do have to admire his intellect (and his humor).
You're really not going to believe what's going on over at Uncommon Descent. Not only are we witnessing the meltdown of Barry Arrington, but we may also be witnessing the beginning of the end of Intelligent Design Creationism. The IDiots are manoeuvring themselves into such an extreme position that no intelligent person can possibly support them. Just read the comments.
I'm reminded of the word "pathos" but I had to look it up to make sure I got it right. It means something that causes people to feel pity, sadness, or even compassion. It's the right word to describe what's happening. It's also similar to the word "pathetic."
Here's what's happening.
As you know, Barry Arrington claimed that the IDiots made a prediction. They predicted that there's no such thing as junk DNA. They predicted that most of our genome would turn out to have a function [Let’s Put This One To Rest Please]. That's much is true. It makes perfect sense because an Intelligent Design Creator wouldn't create a genome that was 90% junk.
A few days ago I mentioned that definitions were important and I asked my students to look at twenty definitions of "evolution" [The Many Definitions of Evolution]. I was surprised to discover that some of you don't think it's very important to agree on how we define important terms and concepts.
David Klinghoffer agrees with me. He recently posted an article on Evolution News & Views (sic) where he called for clear definitions [Terry Mattingly: In the Evolution Debate, Clear Definitions Are Among the Casualties]. Let's see what he has to say ...
The point cannot be hammered home too often: In media coverage of the evolution debate, a standard trick, the one that stands out the most for slipperiness, is the refusal to define common terms. What is "evolution," or "creationism," or "intelligent design"? Readers may think they know. The reporter may think he knows. Usually, the shades of meaning get blurred, with the suspiciously consistent effect of casting evolution skeptics into a bad light.
Oh dear. Klinghoffer thinks that we are guilty of using definitions that make creationists look bad. He quotes from an article by Terry Mattingly who says ....
[T]he committee that produces the Associated Press Stylebook needs to urge mainstream journalists to be more careful when using the words "evolution" and "creationism." Each of those terms has a half dozen or so finely tuned definitions, depending on who is using them at any given moment.
For example, a person who accepts a creation narrative with a "young earth" and a timeline with seven 24-hour days will certainly embrace the creationist label. But what about a person who believes that creation unfolded over billions of years, involved slow change over time, a common tree of descent for species and ages of micro-evolutionary change?
That's simple. Both are creationists [On Describing IDiots as Creationists] [Creationism Continuum] [What Is Creationism?] (The last two posts attempt to deal with some Sandwalk readers who think that their preferred definition is the only correct definition.)
Mattingly then tackles a more difficult definition ....
Similar things happen with the term evolution, which as the Blessed Pope John Paul II once observed, is best discussed in terms of different schools of evolutionary thought, some of which are compatible with Christian faith and some of which are not...
The word "evolutionist" certainly applies to someone who believes life emerged from a natural, materialistic, random process that was without design or purpose. But what about someone who accepts that theory on the biological front, but believes that there is scientific evidence that our universe was finely tuned to produce life? What about someone who says that creation contains evidence best thought of as the signature of its creator (Carl Sagan, for example). What about people who insist they are doctrinaire Darwinists, but still see cracks in the old neo-Darwinian creeds? Are "theistic evolutionists" really believers in "evolution" in the eyes of the truly secular academic powers that be? And so forth and so on.
This is definitely a problem. As we see, Mattingly is terribly confused about the meaning of "evolution" and the difference between it and "evolutionary theory." I agree that we need to be clear about what we mean and I've tried to do that [What Is Evolution?]. (BTW, "theistic evolutionist" is just a euphemism for a particular kind of "creationist.")
Mattingly doesn't give us an answer. I guess he was too busy complaining.
Let's see what Klinghoffer has to say since he's convinced that this is an important issue. How do the IDiots define "evolution" and "Darwinism" and what do they have to say about modern evolutionary theory? How do they define "creationist"?
Waiting .........
Christian de Duve died last May. He was the man who discovered peroxisomes and he did important work on other cell compartments such as lysozomes. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1974 but, unfortunately, his name is not as widely recognized as it should be.
I met him a few times when he was working on his book "Blueprint for a Cell" and his second book, "Vital Dust." These books explore a unique perspective on the origin of life and they should be consulted by anyone who is interested in that topic.
Read the obituary by Fred Opperdoes in PLoS Biology: A Feeling for the Cell: Christian de Duve (1917–2013). You will get to know a scientist whose life is worth celebrating.
You'll also learn how a Belgian gentleman can behave in a way that we in North America cannot yet copy. Perhaps in a few years our countries will also become civilized.
Dr. Christian de Duve remained active until the very end of his life, as this photograph taken in his last year demonstrates. He finished his last book Sept vies en une: Mémoires d'un Prix Nobel only a few months before he passed away. When he felt that both his health and strength were rapidly subsiding, he decided to end his life at the age of 95. He chose to die by an act of euthanasia, while surrounded by his children.
Intelligent Design Creationism is often criticized for not making testable predictions. But as it turns out the movement HAS made a number of predictions. For example, they predicted twenty years ago that "Darwinism" would be dead by now and everyone would believe in God.
Okay, so that one didn't work out very well. What about the other predictions? Barry Arrington, that well-known science expert, lets us know about a prediction that turned out to be correct according to his understanding of biology! [Let’s Put This One To Rest Please]
Elizabeth Liddle from a prior post: “Darwinian hypotheses make testable predictions and ID hypotheses (so far) don’t.”
This statement is breathtakingly false. Let us take just one example. For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID proponents disagreed and argued that the evidence would ultimately demonstrate function.
Not only did both hypotheses make testable predictions, the Darwinist prediction turned out to be false and the ID prediction turned out to be confirmed.
EL, you are entitled to your own private opinion. You are not entitled to your own private facts. And when you make it up as you go like this, be sure you will be called out.
Did you remember to turn off your irony meters?
Wanna see some examples of predictions that would falsify Intelligent Design Creationism? Go to: Predictions of Intelligent Design Creationism.
Khurana er al. (2013) have just published a nice paper in Science where they analyzed 1009 human genomes in order to detect variants that might be linked to certain diseases (especially cancer). They focused on noncoding regions since it is much harder to recognize mutations in regulatory regions and these are leading candidates for cancer-causing mutations. What they did was identify conserved sequences and look for variants withing those presumptive regulatory sequences.
There's nothing in the paper about junk DNA and nothing about the overall organization of the human genome. Indeed, the tone of the paper is exactly what you would expect from a group of scientists who know that parts of noncoding DNA are involved in gene regulation.
But here's what the press release from the Welcome Trust Sanger Institute says [New technique identifies novel class of cancer's drivers].
Sieving through 'junk' DNA reveals disease-causing genetic mutations
Researchers can now identify DNA regions within non-coding DNA, the major part of the genome that is not translated into a protein, where mutations can cause diseases such as cancer.
Their approach reveals many potential genetic variants within non-coding DNA that drive the development of a variety of different cancers. This approach has great potential to find other disease-causing variants.
Unlike the coding region of the genome where our 23,000 protein-coding genes lie, the non-coding region - which makes up 98% of our genome - is poorly understood. Recent studies have emphasised the biological value of the non-coding regions, previously considered 'junk' DNA, in the regulation of proteins. This new information provides a starting point for researchers to sieve through the non-coding regions and identify the most functionally important regions.
Here's a few facts that you need to keep in mind.
- In spite of what the press release says, we understand a great deal about the 98% of our genome that doesn't encode protein.
- We've known about regulatory regions for half a century. It's simply not correct to imply that our knowledge is "recent."
- No knowledgeable scientist ever said that all non-coding regions were junk in spite of what the press release says.
- The paper does not provide a "starting point" to identify functionally important regions. We already have a pretty good idea about which parts of the noncoding genome are functional and which parts aren't.
How are we going to put a stop to this kind of misleading press release? Should we blame the authors of the paper and hold them accountable for any misrepresentations of their data by the universities, institutes, and companies that employ them?
Note: It took the IDiots less than 24 hours to exploit the stupidity of the Welcome Trust Sanger Institute. See: Helpful for non-Darwinists: Uses of junk DNA.
Khurana, E., Fu, Y., Colonna, V., Mu, X.J. et al. (2013) Integrative annotation of variants from 1,092 humans: application to cancer genomics. Science 2013 [doi: 10.1126/science.1235587]
Jerry Coyne has been following the debate between Steven Pinker and Leon Wieseltier on the topic of scientism [see The final round: Pinker vs. Wieseltier on scientism]. Jerry seems to agree with both Pinker and Wieseltier that there are "two magisteria" (science and humanities) ...
[Wieseltier] calls for a “two magisteria” solution, with science and humanities kept separate, but with “porous boundaries.” But that is exactly what Pinker called for, too! Wieseltier claims that Pinker and other advocates of scientism advocate “totalistic aspirations,” i.e., the complete takeover of humanities by the sciences (“unified field theories,” Wieseltier calls them), but Pinker explicitly said that he wasn’t calling for that.
...
As you can see above, Steve never argued that science is, or should be, supreme in all the contexts. Indeed, in his earlier piece he noted that art and literature, while they might be informed in some ways by science, nevertheless have benefits independent of science. To me, those benefits include affirming our common humanity, being moved by the plight of others, even if fictional, and luxuriating in the sheer beauty of music, words, or painting. (Note, though, that one day science might at least explain why we apprehend that beauty.)
I'm not sure how Pinker, Wieseltier, and Coyne are defining science but it's clear that they aren't using the same definition I use.
I think that science is a way of knowing based on evidence and logic and healthy skepticism. I think that all disciplines seeking knowledge use the scientific approach. This is the broad definition of science used by many philosophers and scientists.
I have expressed little confidence in the viability of the territorial demarcation problem, and even less interest in solving it. Not only is there no clear-cut way to disentangle epistemic domains like science and philosophy, but such a distinction carries little epistemic weight. The demarcation problem that deserves our attention is the one between science and pseudoscience (and the analogous ones between philosophy and pseudophilosophy and between history and pseudohistory).
Sven Ove Hanson is more specific because he actually defines "science in a broad sense" in a way that I have been using it for several decades. This is from his chapter on "Defining Pseudoscience and Science" in Philosophy of Pseudescience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem.
Unfortunately neither "science" nor any other established term in the English language covers all the disciplines that are parts of this community of knowledge disciplines. For lack of a better term, I will call them "science(s) in the broad sense." (The German word "Wissenschaft," the closest translation of "science" into that language, has this wider meaning; that is, it includes all the academic specialties, including the humanities. So does the Latin "scientia.") Science in a broad sense seeks knowledge about nature (natural science), about ourselves (psychology and medicine), about our societies (social science and history), about our physical constructions (technological science), and about our thought construction (linguistics, literary studies, mathematics, and philosophy). (Philosophy, of course, is a science in this broad sense of the word.)
If this is what we mean by science" then there's no difference between the ways we try to acquire knowledge in the humanities or the natural sciences and the debate between Pinker and Wieseltier takes on an entirely different meaning.
There aren't "two magisteria" but only one. Unless, of course, someone is willing to propose a successful non-scientific way of knowing. I have asked repeatedly for examples of knowledge ("truth") that have been successfully acquired by any other way of knowing. So far, nobody has come up with an answer so we can tentatively conclude that science (in the broad sense) is the only valid way of acquiring true knowledge.
Clearly we don't have all the answers to everything so it's clear that neither science nor anything else has all the answers. What about the questions? Are there any knowledge questions that science (in the broad sense) can't address? I don't think there are. I think "science" covers all the questions even though it doesn't (yet) have all the answers.
If this is "scientism" then I'm guilty. What is the alternative? Is it revelation (revealed truth)? Or is there some other way of knowing that I haven't heard about?
