Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research, academic freedom cases, and educational policy issues. ENV also covers how the rest of the newsmedia report on the debate, offering analysis and corrections to major news stories, as well as a behind-the-scenes look at how journalists and news outlets operate when they report on this issue.
September 2, 2010
Mohler, Giberson, and the Genesis of Charles Darwin: Will the Truth Set Karl Giberson Free?
On August 21 Karl Giberson, physics professor at Eastern Nazarene College and one of several engaged in the ever-interesting juggling act of defending "faith and science" by means of a Darwinian apologetic, now has added to his litany of misconceptions a boorish attack on Al Mohler in The Huffington Post, "How Darwin Sustains My Baptist Search for Truth." Since David Klinghoffer has provided an excellent summary of the issues involved in an earlier post to this site, Karl Giberson v Al Mohler on Darwin: The Grudge Match, they need not be restated here. The point here is to address Giberson's principal objection, namely, Mohler's assertion that "Darwin did not embark upon the Beagle having no preconceptions of what exactly he was looking for or having no theory of how life emerged . . . ." Giberson wants to dismiss Mohler's comments as merely an effort "to undermine evolution by suggesting that it was 'invented' to prop up Darwin's worldview."
Giberson's complaint is easily addressed from his own standpoint. Since he seems to privilege the historians on this issue (rejecting Mohler's comments as those of "a theologian and not a historian" is an odd dismissal since Giberson isn't a historian either!), what have the subject specialists said on this matter? As will become evident, it really is very much a question of worldview. The central issue at hand isn't whether or not Darwin embarked upon the Beagle "in search of evolution" but whether or not his mental attitude was prepared for it and what the nature of his attitude really was. In other words, had Darwin already formed a mental template of how natural phenomena would be interpreted once he encountered them on the Beagle? The issue certainly isn't Genesis but the genesis of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). The historians tell us three major things in this regard.
If someone opposed to abortion were to take hostages at an
abortion clinic, you can be sure the newsmedia would tenaciously track down and
publicize every anti-abortion association and comment of the criminal in
question. But when a gunman inspired by Darwinism takes hostages at the offices
of the Discovery Channel, reporters seem curiously uninterested in fully
disclosing the criminal's own self-described motivations. Most of yesterday's media
reports about hostage-taker James Lee dutifully reported Lee's eco-extremism
and his pathological hatred for humanity. But they also suppressed any mention
of Lee's explicit
appeals to Darwin and Malthus as the intellectual foundations for his
views. At least, I could find no references to Lee's Darwinian motivations in
the accounts I read by the New
York Times, the Los
Angeles Times, the Washington
Post, ABC, CNN,
and MSNBC.
Lee obviously was mentally disturbed, and the vast majority of Darwinists today
would not defend his violent actions, just as the vast majority of those in the
pro-life community would not embrace violence against abortion clinics. But the
complete absence of Lee's Darwinian motivations from many, if not most, news
reports is noteworthy.
Bruce Chapman has an insightful bit of commentary about today's tragic events at the Discovery Channel offices.
It was both scary and pathetic at the Discovery Channel in Maryland today when an environmental terrorist took hostages in an attempt to force the television network to show more programs on Malthus and Darwin and to rail against over-population and global warming.
Oddly missing from initial news accounts was any mention of Darwin. But, in James J. Lee's manifesto, emerges this clear demand: "Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people's brains until they get it!!"
We are thankful that James J. Lee, the hostage-taker who invaded the Discovery Channel building today in Maryland, did no physical harm to his hostages, who have now been safely freed. Lee, a radical environmentalist, was shot and killed. While expressing relief that police action averted a greater possible tragedy, it's worth noting the contents of the late Mr. Lee's reported manifesto, a list of demands he published online, directed at the cable channel. Demand number 7 reads:
Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people's brains until they get it!!
For the sake of the planet, Lee urges the sterilization of "filthy" human beings and suggests airing "forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation."
Somehow it's not surprising that he was an opponent of religion as well. Demand number 4:
A recent article in Trends in Genetics, "Causes and evolutionary significance of genetic convergence," addresses the apparently "convergent" appearance of genes or gene sequences and how unguided evolution can explain this. The paper defines convergence as the "independent appearance of the same trait in different lineages." Thus, genetic convergence is the independent appearance of the same genetic trait in different lineages. The article starts by explaining how widespread convergent evolution is:
In public debates (and personal discussions) with Michael Shermer and Massimo Pigliucci, I've met an argument, advanced by both skeptics, which opens interesting and largely unexplored territory in the ID vs. naturalism controversy. In a new article, the science writer and astronomer John Gribbin steps into the same territory, a speculative region familiar to fans of science fiction, not to mention philosophy students with time on their hands and imaginations liberated (perhaps) by alcohol. Back in my early teens, when I lived on a steady diet of science fiction and first saw Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey, I could have discussed these ideas well into the night. A short blog post will have to suffice today.
This figure (below), from Massimo Pigliucci, helps to describe the issue:
Both Pigliucci and Shermer have grasped that causation by a higher intelligence does not necessarily entail causation by a benevolent God -- and the former possibility, they think, might follow as a reasonable inference from physical evidence. This was the point, incidentally, of Richard Dawkins's speculations, at the end of the movie Expelled, about extraterrestrial intelligence possibly causing the origin of life on Earth. These physical effects might appear to us as "magic," meaning inexplicable by our current science. Arthur C. Clarke's famous Third Law -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -- is the wonderfully pithy bumper sticker version of the argument.
Evolutionary biologists make poor historians, especially when it comes to Charles Darwin. So intent on preserving the reputation of St. Charles, evolutionists typically do their best to paper-over Darwin's less-than-savory views on issues like race or the application of natural selection to society. British biochemist and theistic evolutionist Denis Alexander runs true to form in a newly posted interview at BioLogos. In the interview, Alexander does his best to disassociate Darwin from the idea of "survival of the fittest," noting that the phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer rather than Charles Darwin, and that it was then picked up by nasty politicians like Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler, who used it to promote their noxious views.
Alexander is correct that Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," and that the idea was adopted by the Kaiser and by Hitler. But he neglects to mention one other important figure from history who embraced the term: Charles Darwin himself. As I point out in my book Darwin Day in America, Darwin eventually described "survival of the fittest" as "more accurate" than his own term of "natural selection," and he employed the phrase repeatedly in the fifth and sixth editions of On the Origin of Species as well as in other works.
Many years ago I interviewed Eric Hoffer (1898-1983), and may have been the last journalist to do so. Widely known as the Longshoreman Philosopher, he was for years a member of the dockers' union in San Francisco, but his views were not those of your typical stevedore. He had published The True Believer in 1951, and more books after that. Impressed by the breadth of his mind and the unconventional nature of his opinions, I wrote and asked if I could come and interview him. That was in 1980. He invited me to come.
He had written that "when God died in the middle of the 19th century there was immediately set in motion a process which tended to reverse the separation of nature and human nature." Darwinism, and the intellectual currents of his day, "aimed to reduce human nature to nature." Biologically, man was now seen as nothing more than "a superior monkey." Politically, he was an automaton who could be manipulated by a Mao or a Stalin.
Hoffer's refusal to join the parade of thinkers who accepted that man was little more than a boastful ape was perhaps his finest hour as a philosopher. It showed him at his most independent. And his perception of the unique qualities of man encouraged him to ponder man's Creator.
Out of the blue, when I arrived in San Francisco, I asked Hoffer whether he believed in evolution. His reply was immediate: "It's easier to believe in God."
The Darwinian model of evolution holds that one of the key mechanisms of evolutionary innovation is the duplication of genes and the subsequent divergence of one of the duplicate copies to undertake a new functional role. Because a probability of a single gene stumbling upon a significantly different (yet functionally advantageous) sequence is so small, the idea is that, following a duplication of a gene, one copy is able to retain the original function, while the other is free to explore the vast sea of combinatorial possibilities in search of some novel function.
It is widely believed that a duplicate gene has no phenotypic cost or advantage associated with it - that is, it is selectively neutral. In such a state, it is thought that the gene is free to mutate, independent of selection constraints or pressure. When a previously protein-coding gene incurs deleterious mutations such that it no longer codes for a useful polypeptide, the gene is rendered a "pseudogene".
One recent paper, which recently appeared in the open-access journal, PLoS Genetics, by Kuo and Ochman, entitled "The Extinction Dynamics of Bacterial Pseudogenes", offers a potent challenge to this view. According to the paper's abstract:
Evolutionary evangelist Jerry Coyne argues that we are all just slaves to our genes and that behaviors likes racism and sexism are facts of evolution. They're in our "own nature".
We may also have evolved to be sexist and xenophobic, but that doesn't mean that we should give up trying to extirpate racism and sexism from our world. After all, by asking people to stop disliking foreigners, or those of different races, we may be asking them to defy their own nature.
Yet, he thinks we should try to stamp them out anyhow. But, if these traits are simply a result of our genetic make-up won't evolution eventually either enhance such traits or eradicate them forever? In its own good time?
It seems that in Jerry's world these things shouldn't even be up for a debate since things are just the way they are. Naturally. Que sera, sera.
In 2006, the New York Times published an exceedingly long book review titled "An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong," covering Harvard evolutionary psychologist Marc D. Hauser's theories of the evolution of human morality. "Religions are not the source of moral codes," stated the review when describing Hauser's ideas, further noting that this claim, "if true, would have far-reaching consequences." The review observed that "[m]atters of right and wrong have long been the province of moral philosophers and ethicists," but after Hauser's work, "[m]oral philosophers may not welcome a biologist's bid to annex their turf." So who has authority over morality: evolutionary psychologists, or theologians?
In his book, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, Hauser explains that evolutionary psychologists have domain in this field. He argues that morality needs to be divorced from religion:
It's always a bad sign when people start publishing "open letters" to one another. Our BioLogos friend Karl Giberson is embroiled in a strangely bitter dispute with Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Bitter, at least, on Dr. Giberson's side. In this dustup, theistic evolutionist Giberson displays a lot less dignity than the object of his ire, Dr. Mohler, and less regard for truth notwithstanding that it's precisely a lack of truthfulness with which he seeks to tar Mohler.
Dr. Giberson's concern as always is to demonstrate the Christian bona fides of Darwinian theory. Writing on the Huffington Post under the striking headline "How Darwin Sustains My Baptist Search for Truth," he now takes Mohler to task for a speech he gave showing, in Giberson's eyes, that Mohler "does not seem to care about the truth and seems quite content to simply make stuff up when it serves his purpose." Mohler's sentences that provoked Giberson to make this charge are as follows:
More than a century ago, Charles Darwin thought he had explained away the evidence for intelligent design in biology. But now new evidence from molecular biology, genetics, and related fields are raising four important challenges to the claim that complex biological life is the result of an undirected process of natural selection acting on random mutations. Learn about these "4 nails in Darwin's coffin" at this FREE event.
Bring your questions!
Sponsored by PULSE and Victory Campus Ministries, SMU. For more information, email sykes@smu.edu or call 214-528-7343.
In an earlier article, I pointed out biologist Kathryn Applegate's astonishing attempt to attribute the bacterial flagellum to "magic" rather than intelligent design. But I neglected to point out another problem with her critique of ID: She apparently does not understand what the theory of intelligent design actually proposes. Applegate's misunderstanding becomes clear early-on when she asserts: "Despite the strong appearance of special design, most scientists, myself included, believe the evidence points to a gradual development for the bacterial flagellum." Applegate here treats intelligent design as the opposite of "a gradual development of the bacterial flagellum." But no intelligent design theorist would do that. Many intelligently-designed things in nature may well develop through a gradual process. That's not the issue. The issue is whether things can develop through a gradual process that is undirected.
Over at BioLogos,
biologist Kathryn Applegate has offered what has to be one of the more creative
alternatives to the intelligent design of the bacterial flagellum: Magic. I'm not kidding. Applegate readily concedes biochemist Michael Behe's point
that the flagellum "looks and functions just like the outboard
motor, a machine designed by intelligent human engineers. So conspicuous is the
resemblance that it seems perfectly logical to infer a Designer for the
flagellum." But, wait, she says: "The bacterial flagellum may look like an outboard motor, but there is at least one
profound difference: the flagellum assembles spontaneously, without
the help of any conscious agent."
(emphasis added)
Acknowledging that "the self-assembly of such a complex machine
almost defies the imagination," Dr. Applegate assures her readers that this is
not really a problem because "Natural forces work 'like magic." Presto, chango,
something appears!
On August 19, Gina Kolata reported in The New York Times that geneticists "have seen a dead gene come back to life and cause a disease."
According to Kolata, the human genome "is riddled with dead genes, fossils of a sort, dating back hundreds of thousands of years--the genome's equivalent of an attic full of broken and useless junk," though some of those genes "can rise from the dead like zombies."
Now a supposed "zombie gene" is implicated in a type of muscular dystrophy abbreviated FSHD--a hereditary disease that affects about 1 in every 20,000 people.
Kolata cites a recent Science article that begins by reviewing work dating back to the 1990s that establishes a link between FSHD and a specific region on human chromosome 4. The region contains multiple repeats of "D4Z4" DNA; people with 11 or more repeats are normal, while people who have from 1 to 10 repeats are susceptible to FSHD.
Biologists used to think that D4Z4 DNA was neither transcribed into RNA nor translated into protein. In other words, D4Z4 was thought to be biologically inactive--what some people have called ":junk DNA." Recently, however, researchers discovered that D4Z4 DNA is transcribed, and that part of it is translated into a protein, DUX4.
Free ID Newsletter and Book Subscribe here for a free weekly newsletter about intelligent design and evolution and the new digital book Signature of Controversy for free.
Groundbreaking ID Book
