The Big Picture

In Galileo’s time it was the heliocentric controversy which sent religious institutions reeling while today it is, among other things, evolution. But demonstrating that the sun is at the center of our solar system was a much simpler proposition than elucidating the whole process of evolutionary progression over billions of years.

For this reason the opponents of evolution find it easier to remain blind to the facts than those who opposed the heliocentric view of the solar system in Galileo’s time. All kinds of nonsensical arguments can be used in support of their position. In spite of all the evidence supporting the process of evolution, especially in the field of molecular biology, absurd comments, from those who vehemently oppose the idea of evolution, can make perfect sense to those unwilling or unable to accept the reality of their origins. The fact that human beings were subject to the forces of natural selection just like any other life form is anathema to those insistent upon holding on to traditional beliefs and they will grasp on to any commentary which supports their view no matter how insubstantial it is: erstwhile, conservative radio talk show host, Barry Farber, made a comment about evolution on one of his programs saying, Solomon-like, “I’ve never seen a chimpanzee turn into a man!” as if with one salient triumph of reason he discredited the whole theory of evolution once and for all.

For people in Mr. Farber’s camp, equally opposed to the very idea of evolution as he, and equally uninformed about the subject, such statements, no doubt, resonate in their minds as perfectly sound arguments. The Barry Farbers of Galileo’s time accused the scientist of somehow rigging his telescope in order to make it appear as though the earth revolved around the sun. But the enhanced ocular evidence seen through the telescope eventually overrode the ocular illusion of the sun revolving around the earth and the Church had to find a way of existing within that reality.

Today the ocular evidence on a macroscopic level tells us that the differences between humans and chimps are astronomical. On a microscopic level, however, the differences are infinitesimal. But the microscopic view of anatomical processes doesn’t produce the same demonstrative power in relation to evolutionary process as the telescopic view of heavenly bodies did in reference to the configuration of our solar system. Looking at charts and slides representing genes and chromosomes of a chimp and a human and noting their similarities doesn’t begin to demonstrate anything about how the actual process of evolution works - a process that in some areas still eludes a full understanding by evolutionary scientists themselves. So, it is very difficult for us to appreciate the relationship between the processes of life on a micro level and the resulting life forms on a macro level. Which, again, for those who categorically dismiss the very notion of our evolutionary emergence, makes it very easy to discredit.

Those in the oxymoronic Creation Science camp perpetrated an outright fraud in an attempt to have their point of view validated. They have claimed on more than one occasion that they had found the fossilized footprints of a dinosaur and a human side by side at locations in Texas. Upon investigating these claims they were found to be bogus. In at least a couple of the cases it was found that the footprints claimed to be human had been tampered with in an effort to make them appear that way. One wonders what the perpetrators of such a foolhardy act could have been thinking. Did they really think they could get away with such a hoax? Did they believe such a hoax to be within the moral code of their religion? Did they think such a hoax was justified because they thought it to be in the service of some higher truth? If a higher truth is in need of abysmal falsification is that not a negation of it?

Creation Science morphed into the more sophisticated Intelligent Design camp. They rely on the complexity of evolutionary science and the general public’s ignorance of the subject to mislead people into thinking that evolution is not valid science. There are, of course, things yet to be explained in regard to the science of evolution, but to use what we don’t know about the evolutionary process to dismiss it in its entirety is tantamount to dismissing the concept of religion because of its own inherent mysteries. Be that as it may the proponents of creation science are engaging in the dissemination of misinformation and outright falsehoods to disparage evolutionary science in an attempt to make some form of creationism the more credible scenario.

One of the original proponents of intelligent design, Michael Behe, wrote a book called, Darwin’s Black Box, which attempted to make the case for god as intelligent designer by illustrating the meticulous workmanship on the molecular scale of life. All the tiny components that fit so well together and display such exquisite functionality could not have come about all by themselves. They just had to have been the work of a master designer.

That Behe lacked scientific integrity and wrote Darwin’s Black Box with a biased perspective was evident in the absence of any mention in his book of spontaneous construction with respect to life on the molecular level, like the physicist turned microbiologist, Jacques Monod, writes about in Chance and Necessity. Monod illustrates how molecular structures take shape with respect to their specific chemical properties alone and are in no way in need of a designer. He explains how it is possible to take a molecular structure apart, a protein, for instance, without damaging it, “In this state,” he goes on to say, “the protein will in general have lost all its functional properties, catalytic or regulatory. However – and this is the important point – if the initial “normal” conditions are restored (by eliminating the dissoctiating agent), the subunits will ordinarily reassemble spontaneously, reforming the original “native” state of the aggregate: The same number of protomers in the same geometrical arrangement, accompanied by the same functional properties as before.” Furthermore, “…ribosomes which are the essential components of the mechanism that translates the genetic code, that is, of the protein-synthesizing machinery. These particles, whose molecular weight attains 10,000,000, are made up by the assembly of some thirty thousand distinct proteins plus three different types of nucleic acids…it has been found that, in vitro, the dissociated constituents of ribosomes spontaneously reassemble themselves into particles having the same composition, the same molecular weight, the same functional activity as the original “native” material.

“However, the most spectacular example…of the spontaneous construction of complex molecular edifices is without doubt that of certain bacteriophages (viruses that attack bacteria). The complicated and very precise structure of the T4 bacteriophage corresponds to this particle’s function, which is not only to protect the genome of the virus, but also to attach itself to the wall of the host cell in order to inject into it, syringe-like, its DNA content. The different parts of this microscopic precision machinery can be obtained separately from different mutants of the virus. Mixed together in vitro they assemble themselves spontaneously to reconstitute particles identical to normal ones and fully capable of exercising their DNA-injecting function.”

So, “…complex structures possessing functional properties develop from the stereospecific, spontaneous assembling of their protein constituents. Order, structural differentiation, acquisition of functions – all these appear out of a random mixture of molecules individually devoid of any activity, any intrinsic functional capacity other than that of recognizing the partners with which they will build the structure. The structure of the assembled molecules itself constitutes the source of “information” for the construction of the whole.”

Behe purports to be a microbiologist but does not engage us with authentic discourse. He is trafficking in dogma - a cleric in scientific clothing.

Another such masquerading cleric is intelligent design proponent, George Gilder, who says things like, “Just as quantum theory overthrew Newtonian theory the theory of information is going to overthrow biology.” Now, in the first place, there was no overthrowing involved in quantum theory with respect to Newtonian theory. So, the overthrowing of biology by information theory cannot follow from that. It was Einstein’s theory of relativity that showed Newtonian physics was not relevant to the cosmos on a large scale. However, Newton’s formulas were discovered in reference to our little corner of the universe and they are just as viable in that respect today as they were when an apple first fell to the ground. Furthermore, Newtonian physics has to do with what physicists call the classical world, the familiar world of objects that we live in, while the physics of quantum world particles is entirely different. To state that the latter overthrew the other is like saying apples overthrew oranges. Also, even if the one theory did overthrow another theory how does that equate with a particular theory, information theory, overthrowing a whole body of knowledge, biology? That statement by Gilder is just nonsensical however one may care to parse it.

Another ridiculous statement this self-proclaimed scientist came up with was, “Assume a book…Finding life in traces of protein is like trying to find the contents of a book by a chemical and physical analysis of the paper and ink on which it’s produced.”

To Gilder “life” means information and, according to him, analyzing proteins is not going to reveal its content. He wants to believe that that information is totally separate from, and precedes, any anatomical material.

Now, if proteins are the book of life, then, DNA is the printing press. But, in this case, the printing press does not impress code onto some extraneous material, the printing press itself is the information that puts together a book whose material and content are one.

It is all physical, there is no content, no information over and above the physical material. As Monod noted above, “The structure of the assembled molecules itself constitutes the source of “information”…”.

So, there is no need for a designer. There is no need for an idea to precede the process. We can posit that need, we can posit a designer if we so desire, but the self-contained process does not necessitate one.