I hesitate to reenter the fray, as this "debate" has already soaked
up more of my time than it should (as it no doubt has for your
readers), and it seems only to give Dr. Nichols an excuse to continue
his public crusade to spread misinformation under the guise of
"scientific" debate. Nevertheless, there are a couple of whoppers
here that beg correction.
>All,
>
>"Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were
>well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own
>arrogance, the envy of his colleagues and the politics of Pope Urban
>VIII. He was not accused of criticising the Bible, but disobeying a
>papal decree.... Galileo was prosecuted because of the political
>situation [Thirty Years' War] and his personal attacks on the pope,
>never for religious reasons." Schirrmacher, Thomas, The Galileo
>affair: history or heroic hagiography?, Technical Journal 14(1), pp.
>91-100, April 2000
>
>For a bigger view of the Galileo affair, visit the following site.
>Do not ignore it simply because it is a Creationist site. The
>article is exceedingly well documented.
><http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/galileo.asp
>
>Dr. Miles expressed "Life is based on a genetic code of four base
>pairs-individual creation would not require this, but it is
>consistent with life forms evolving from earlier forms." How does
>this disprove individual creation of the original kinds? DNA is an
>information storage and transmittal system. Why do you require a
>different information transmittal system for each created kind?
>Understanding that DNA stores and transmits information is step one.
>Can you explain by purely materialistic means how that information
>came to be encoded in the DNA in the first place?
>
>As to the similarity of chimps and humans, since there is only one
>information storage and transmission device (DNA) in use, doesn't it
>make sense that organisms that have similar morphology and
>biochemistry would have similar information contained in their DNA?
>That doesn't prove that one descended from the other, or that they
>have a common ancestor. All it proves is that they are
>morphologically and biochemically similar. Depending on your
>philosophical bias, you could interpret that as either the result of
>a common ancestor or the result of a common designer. But it can't
>prove either interpretation to be correct.
>
>The figures Dr. Miles quotes to show similarity are a bit
>misleading. Fujiyama et al compared 19.8 million bases and
>calculated similarity at 98.77%. However, 19.8 million bases is
>less than 1% of the genome, and they only considered substitutions
>and not deletions or insertions. That leaves 99% of the genome that
>they didn't examine and a portion of the 1% that they overlooked.
>Similarity in symbols still doesn't explain the dissimilarity in the
>information conveyed. I bet if you compared 1% of a Danielle Steele
>novel and a Stephen King novel you would find them quite similar in
>symbol content.
This is ludicrous. Yes, the English language has only 26 letters, so
at some level the "symbol content" is the same, but if you were to
compare 1% of these two novels (a couple of pages worth), and found
99% similarity in the order of the letters, one of the two authors
would be accused of plagiarism (and rightly so!). Just as in the
English alphabet, the information in DNA is contained in the order of
the base pairs, not just their relative proportions, and although I
cannot claim to be an expert on mammalian genomics, 99% similarity in
any substantial portion of the genome is remarkable,and indicative of
an unusual amount of genetic similarity even for two closely related
mammalian species. Moreover, Dr. Nichols neglects the fact that the
common ancestry of chimps and humans is based not only on striking
genetic and morphological similarity (and behavioral similarity, for
that matter), but also on their common geographic origin in east
Africa, and the fact that their fossil relatives are restricted to
east Africa (at least initially for the lineage leading to humans).
>But the information conveyed is remarkably different.
>
>The concept of intelligent design (another origins theory with
>similarities to creationism) is gaining support in the scientific
>community. In fact, in the January 30, 2005, edition of our very
>own Chattanooga Times Free Press section F Perspective, UTC's
>Timothy Gaudin participated in a column on teaching evolution in the
>classroom. Dr. Gaudin's "opponents" were Dr. John Angus Campbell
>from the University of Memphis and Dr. Stephen C Meyer from Palm
>Beach Atlantic University. Dr. Gaudin stated his case for excluding
>creationist ideas in the biology classroom. His argument was the
>standard pro-evolution statement which forms the basis for his, Dr.
>Honerkamp's , and Dr. Miles' approach in this debate. I personally
>did not see a difference in the views Dr. Gaudin expressed in his
>column and in this debate. Therefore, I will not discuss them here.
>However, for a more complete story (ie. both sides of the
>discussion), I suggest that you read his column. (I have a personal
>copy of the article I can share, but I believe that copyright laws
>prevent me from distributing a copy campus-wide. If I am wrong, I
>am sure that someone will let me know.)
>
>It was the opposing column that I found interesting. Dr. Campbell
>and Dr. Meyer felt that it was imperative to discuss the scientific
>controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution. They surmised that
>"teachers should describe competing views to students and explain
>the arguments for and against these views as made by their chief
>proponents." Next, Dr. Campbell and Dr. Meyer point out that some
>scientists "doubt the idea that all organisms have evolved from a
>single common ancestor" because the fossil finds confirm a "pattern
>of a explosive appearance and prolonged stability in living forms"
>as opposed to the gradual pattern supplied by Darwin. They go
>further and explain that "other scientists doubt the creative power
>of the Darwinian mechanism." They explain that these biologists
>accept the idea of small scale micro-evolutionary changes like "the
>change in the shape of finch beaks", but they reject the notion of
>large scale macro-evolutionary changes necessary to produce new
>structures and forms of life. In fact, Dr. Campbell and Dr. Meyer
>state that approximately 350 scientists from multiple institutions
>such as MIT, Yale, Rice, and the Smithsonian "have signed a
>statement questioning the creation power of the natural
>selection/mutation mechanism."
This is incredibly misleading. The survey signed by these scientists
actually states that natural selection is the sole source of modern
biological diversity. Of course many scientists signed a statement
expressing their doubts about such a statement, because we have known
for a long time that it is not true - there are other mechanisms for
creating genetic and morphological diversity besides mutation and
natural selection. This does not mean, of course, that these
scientists doubt the validity of mutation and natural selection as
agents of evolutionary change, nor even that they doubt its role as
the most important source of evolutionary change.
>These opinions have been held by creationists and proponents of
>intelligent design for quite some time . The implication here is
>that if the Darwinian mechanism couldn't account for large scale
>changes, then what could? I suggest that this picture is not the
>one of perfect unity in the scientific community painted by Dr.
>Gaudin in his column or in this debate.
I resent the implication that I painted a misleading picture - the
facts would certainly speak otherwise.
>
>Dr. Campbell and Dr. Meyer further assert that "some scientists
>doubt the Darwinian idea that living things merely 'appear'
>designed. Instead, they think that living systems display telltale
>signs of actual or 'intelligent' design." Research has shown the
>presence of digital information, complex circuits, and miniature
>motors in living cells. They point to specific research by Lehigh
>University biochemist Michael Behe in which he studies the rotary
>engine that powers the propeller-like tail of certain bacteria.
>These little engines require the coordinated interaction of some 40
>protein parts. If one part is missing, then the engine does not
>work.
This is also untrue. It turns out that there are bacteria that run
the same "rotary engine" with only 27 proteins. Moreover, most of
the proteins that form this "engine" have other functions as well
within bacterial cells. The truth of the matter is that Dr. Behe is
either unaware of, or has simply chosen to ignore, a large and
growing literature on molecular evolution. Explaining the evolution
of these complex cellular systems is a difficult and intriguing
problem, but it is not the insurmountable problem that Dr. Behe makes
it out to be.
>Behe "concludes that a designing intelligence played a role." Dr.
>Campbell and Dr. Meyer plainly state that "to believe this engine
>emerged gradually in a Darwinian fashion strains credulity." Keep
>in mind that the results of Behe's research don't prove a creator
>nor do they disprove Darwinian evolution. They simply show that
>although it is still possible for Darwinian evolution to be
>responsible for the creation of the engine, it may not be probable.
>Plus, Behe's conclusion and those of Dr. Campbell and Dr. Meyer
>suggest support for a non-evolutionary explanation of the origin of
>the bacteria with its motor by legitimate scientists. Also, from
>what I can gather, Micheal Behe is a proponent of intelligent design
>and not a creationist. Yes, they are similar but different.
>
>For the record, although Dr. Campbell and Dr. Meyer point out the
>growing role of intelligent design in science in its research
>results and published books and articles
Of course, Dr. Nichols does not mention that these these published
books and articles are not published in the scientific literature, in
legitimate peer-reviewed journals or by established scientific
presses, but by private political and religious advocacy groups.
Moreover, these publications do not report "research results,"
because there is no research program supporting intelligent design.
No grants are written, no equipment used, no experiments carried out,
no direct observations made of cells, gene sequences, anatomical
structures, fossils, etc. Intelligent design relies on the
time-honored creationist tradition of argument based on misleading or
even erroneous information, misquoting legitimate scientists or
quoting them out of context, and spurious logic.
>, they do not recommend that intelligent design be taught in the
>classroom. Not because it is fantasy or garbage, but because it is
>too new. However, they do insist that teachers discuss alternative
>theories like Behe's design theory as long as they are "based upon
>scientific evidence, not biblical passages" which is exactly what I
>have been asking for this entire debate.
>
>However, I have to admit that I would no more want a devout
>evolutionist teaching me creation than he would want me teaching him
>evolution. Given the intensity of this debate, I'm sure that others
>on both sides of the debate have the same reservation.
>
>Science and creationism are not mutually exclusive as some would
>have you believe. Nor are science and evolution mutually inclusive.
>Science searches for truth, and intelligent, respectful debate
>between competing ideas is a necessary tool. If you want to keep
>the dogma (religious or otherwise) out of the discussion, fine.
>Just apply that same standard to all arguments.
>
>Stephen
Again, my apologies for prolonging a discussion that has probably
already gone on too long.
Tim
--
Timothy J. Gaudin, Ph.D.
Department of Biological &
Environmental Sciences (Dept. 2653)
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37403-2598
Ph: (423) 425-4163 FAX: (423) 425-2285
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
