Proof and Evolution
by Morris Engelson
Most of the essays which comprise my book The Heavenly
Time Machine: Essays on Science and Torah, and
other essays posted on this web site, focus on one specific topic.
This one is a bit different. I would like to discuss the implications
associated with the meaning and use of the words: physical law,
theory, evidence, proof. These words are interconnected, and
I will use evolution as the vehicle to illustrate this connection.
Law and theory
One frequently finds arguments in favor of
the Bible and against science on the basis that the science is
"only a theory." Now if the science were a "law"
then perhaps we might pay some attention to it. But a theory
is, after all, just a suggestion. We can accept it or not, as
we wish. We all know that something may be feasible, "in
theory," but useless in practice. But we usually don't think
that way about a scientific "law." A law seems real.
A law seems solid. We expect nature to obey its laws. This mode
of argument will frequently resonate with someone not attuned
to science. The lay person expects a law to fit reality, while
a theory is a matter of personal inclination. A scientific law
seems clearly to be the more important in describing the universe.
Not so for the scientist, where pride of place goes to the theory.
Theory is the road to the Nobel Prize. Theory is the road to
peer recognition, to honor and prestige. The scientist respects
the word "theory," and takes it as a mark of ignorance
when this respect is not recognized. The scientist will read
"only a theory" and immediately lose interest in going
further. This is unfortunate, because the writer usually has
something worthwhile to say. Too bad that the argument is couched
in terminology that the scientist finds objectionable.
What is going on here? Are scientists so self-absorbed
that they cannot see what is obvious to most people? Or is it
perhaps that most people are utterly incompetent to recognize
reality? The answer is that both the scientist and the non-scientist
see correctly. Too bad that they do not communicate in a manner
where one can understand the other. This is not a unique or isolated
case, and I devote a whole chapter of my book to matters associated
with communication between the scientist and believer in the
Bible. Let's take a look at this matter in more detail.
I will bypass what could become a lengthy
digression on scientific method and the place of hypotheses,
conjectures, models, data, experiments, and so forth, and go
straight to the primary differences between law and theory.
The easiest way to explain this matter is by way of illustration,
where I will use the laws of motion and the theory of gravitation.
We can easily determine the position of a falling object or projectile
using Galileo's laws of motion, which show the relationships
between distance, velocity, and time. These relationship laws
are known to be absolutely accurate from numerous tests and experiments.
Each of us has personally experienced the consequences of these
laws involving falling objects. We know, not just as a matter
of scientific declaration but experientially, that the universe
obeys these laws. Newton's laws of motion are of a higher level
of abstraction as these introduce the notions of force and mass.
But these too can be easily verified by experiment and we experience
the connection between forces and mass of objects and movement
in our every-day lives. We believe in these laws; we "know"
that this is how the world works. A law is something that has
a strong component of verifiability and believability. To be
sure, not all laws are as simple, or easy, to accept as the above
laws of motion. Nevertheless, there is a strong verifiability
and believability factor connected to "laws."
Kepler looked at observational data taken
by Brahe and proposed his three laws of planetary motion. We
do not experience this movement in our every-day lives, and there
is a greater level of abstraction involved than for the other
laws of motion. Still most people see the logic of it when the
matter is explained, and it is fairly simple (at least with current
instrumentation) to verify these laws by observation. We do not
experience the consequences of these laws directly. But most
of us can be convinced that the universe does behave in accordance
with these laws. The laws obey observed reality. There is no
faith involved here.
Then Newton proposed an idea which is, in
many ways, a leap of faith. He suggested that falling objects
on the Earth, the movement of the moon around Earth, planets
moving around the sun and, indeed, all objects in the universe
are subjected to the same forces and relationships. He proposed
that all objects attract each other in proportion to the mass,
and that this force, which we call gravity, extends without bound
in all directions. Suddenly, many ideas which previously seemed
separate, became interconnected. We can connect the fall of the
apocryphal apple with the movement of the moon. And the results
fit. We can compute the one using information from the other.
Not only that, but the movement of distant objects, such as the
moons of Jupiter; the search for an unknown planet, which was
later named Neptune; the rotational motion of a distant galaxy
are all connected to Newton's falling apple. Newton had given
us a conceptual framework to unify these, and many other things.
Newton had given us a "theory." A theory is a conceptual
framework which unifies disparate-seeming phenomena and laws.
A theory introduces connection, and order, and understanding,
and simplification where before was disorder and individuality,
confusion, and complexity. A theory that works well is at the
pinnacle of scientific attainment, and greatly to be admired.
But while a law, being so much simpler than a theory, is usually
clear and clean and well-behaved, not all theories work as well
as Newton's theory of gravitation. Not all theories are the same.
And therein lies an unfortunate cause for misunderstanding. Let's
compare the theory of gravitation to the theory of evolution
to illustrate this point.
Theories of gravitation and evolution
All theories share a number of common elements.
The most essential element is that the theory provide a conceptual
framework that unifies and explains a number of disparate facts,
observations, and laws. Another factor shared by theories is
predictive ability. We can, based upon the logic of the theory,
predict observations, facts, and laws not yet known or discovered.
These predictions provide a falsification ability that lets us
test for the truth of the theory. Rival theories frequently compete
by comparison of results against differing predictions. Finally,
a proper theory is supported by a body of evidence, found to
be credible by a sufficient proportion of practitioners in the
field, so as to be deemed an acceptable theory. Let's see how
gravitation and evolution fit within the above criteria.
The theory of gravitation combined, in one
stroke, the Galilean, Keplerian, and Newtonian laws of motion
and provided a unified framework to explain the relationship
between forces, motion, and objects all across the universe.
The theory has remarkable predictive powers. Here is an example.
A small deviation from the predicted motion of the planet Uranus
led to a debate about the theory of gravitation. Some argued
that the theory failed at large distances, while others argued
that there must be an unknown object beyond Uranus. The position
of this unknown, imputed, object was determined from Newton's
theory, and the planet Neptune was found as predicted. It would
have been a sign that the theory is not correct had Neptune not
been there. This theory provides predictions that can be used
to test its correctness. As for a body of credible evidence that
is accepted by scientists; there is no purpose to discuss it
as there is no one who disagrees with this theory.
Currently we have a cosmological mystery involving
the so called "missing matter." The rotational behavior
of galaxies shows that the gravitational force is greater than
the theory predicts for the amount of matter that is visible.
A simple conclusion would be to say that the theory is not correct.
But no one makes this claim. Instead numerous scientists are
working hard to identify and find the missing "dark matter"
that the theory of gravitation predicts must be there. This theory
is so perfect that it has acquired the status of a law, meaning
a simple relationship that is absolutely correct and reliable.
Thus, Richard Feynman uses gravitation as his primary example
when discussing The Character of Physical Law. Here we
have a rare exception. An idea that has the unifying characteristics
of a theory but is verifiable to be as accurate as a law. (Please
note that I have ignored the special conditions addressed by
general relativity where gravitation theory does, in fact, break
down.)
Like gravitation, evolution is a theory. This
would require that evolution meet the basic requirements associated
with any theory. And it does. The theory of evolution provides
an organizing principle whereby one can establish relationships
between the many living organisms that currently exist; between
current life and life in the past; and it posits a mechanism
for the change (the evolution) leading from life in the past
to life in the future. The theory of evolution includes predictive
properties. The Darwinian model, for example, proposes numerous
tiny changes in organisms over time. This then predicts that
we should find fossil remains showing numerous small differences.
The theory has a falsification component via comparison of actual
results against predictions. For instance, Jean Baptiste Lamark
proposed an evolution theory where characteristics acquired by
an organism during its lifetime are passed on to its offspring.
Observations have shown this prediction to be false. Hence Lamarkian
evolution is no longer accepted, while Neo-Darwinian evolution,
which does not include this idea, is taught in school. Finally,
a substantial number of scientists working in this field are
satisfied that the evidence supporting Darwinian evolution, and
especially evolution in general, is substantial and credible.
Clearly, the theory of evolution meets all the criteria of a
theory. But not all theories are equal. Whereas there is no science-based
opposition to the theory of gravitation, and there is only one
such theory which explains all known matters that are to be explained,
there are a number of theories of evolution and they cannot all
be correct. The Lamarkian version has been eliminated. Darwinian
evolution is clearly the front runner. But the punctuated equilibrium
theory is a strong rival, and we currently do not have sufficient
information to determine which is the correct one, if either.
We would be hard put to place evolution in the same category
of "truth" as gravitation. Clearly theories are not
all equal. Let's take a look at what this is about.
Evidence and proof
Most of us tend to be a bit sloppy in distinguishing
between evidence and proof. Proof requires evidence. But evidence
does not always provide proof. Furthermore, the same evidence
can frequently be used to "prove" contradicting theories.
How else could different theories exist side-by-side while these
compete to become the one and only true theory? But it is really
impossible to establish an absolutely true theory. Something
new might always show up as long as we do not know everything
there is to know about the universe. Yes, a theory must be supported
by credible evidence. But evidence is not the same as proof.
Proof is not the same as truth.
The best analogy I can think of is of a crime
detective analyzing evidence in search of a suspect and a subsequent
trial to "prove" guilt or innocence. The detective
is the scientist. The evidence is the evidence. The theory is
a suspect. The leading theory is the defendant. An accepted theory
is a convicted defendant. But we know that sometimes an innocent
person stands convicted for a crime committed by someone else.
We know that sometimes an innocent person is convicted for a
crime that did not happen because the body was never found and
the missing person returns years later. We know that it is mostly
impossible to be certain that we have uncovered the absolute
truth. Clearly there is a difference between evolution and gravitation
if we use this analogy.
Gravitation theory has been tried and unanimously
convicted. No one proposes an alternative suspect. No one suggests
that the crime did not take place. The evidence has been analyzed
and debated numerous times by many people for different purposes,
and the verdict is always the same. Is it possible that the theory
is wrong? Yes, that is always possible as long as we do not posses
all knowledge. But the possibility is so remote that no one can
conceive of it.
Evolution is a theory in the sense that the
vast majority of scientists in the field hold that the evidence
for it is significant and favorable. Still, there is a tiny minority
of scientists who insist that no crime has been committed. In
other words, the theory is not valid. Then we have a number of
different suspects that fit most of the evidence to some degree
and disagree with some evidence to some degree. We have a number
of theories, and in particular two leading ones known as Neo-Darwinian
evolution and punctuated equilibrium. Darwinian evolution is
the leading theory and it has moved from the suspect into the
defendant phase. The trial is currently in progress. The prosecution
consists of a number of facets. We have unanimity by all evolution
scientists to the effect that a crime has been committed. In
other words, evolution is real and is not to be questioned. But
the unity disappears one level down. The Neo-Darwinists have
less than cordial words for the punctuated equilibrium crowd,
and vice versa. We also have anti-evolutionists who introduce
evidence against any kind of evolution. And then we have a small
group of core Darwinists who insist that the trial is over, the
defendant is guilty and anybody who dares question this is not
just wrong but a mortal danger to humanity. It is as if someone
seriously convinced of the guilt of the defendant is desperately
trying to stop a serial killer from getting loose to kill again.
The rhetoric can get quite heated and personal.
Neo-Darwinian evolution is the leading mainstream
scientific theory we now have to explain life on a scientific
basis. It meets all the criteria of a theory. It deserves all
the respect accorded any theory. It is not something to be dismissed
as of no value because it is "just a theory." But it
is far from "proven" to the degree that such a word
can be used in science. It is not a scientific law. It is not
a statement of absolute truth. It is a theory in flux and in
debate, and there is ample scientific justification for those
who choose to not accept it.
Presuppositions
This essay, so far, includes a mixture of
fact and opinion. But I have tried, and I hope I succeeded, to
present a balanced picture that is not much biased by my beliefs.
This becomes increasingly difficult as we get into a more detailed
discussion on the merits of Neo-Darwinism. The literature in
this area is replete with polemics and personal attacks that
have nothing to do with scientific discourse. To use the crime
analogy again, we have people who are passionately convinced
that the defendant is innocent and will go to great lengths to
say so. Others are equally convinced of guilt and will do all
in their power to prevent the release of a serial killer. We
care a great deal about ourselves, and evolution is about us.
We care. We are emotional and passionate about evolution. I am
part of "we." It is likely that my beliefs will cloud
my judgment. And it is likely that I may overstep the bounds
of scientifically accepted discourse. I can not change that.
But I can give the reader a summary of my beliefs, so that the
reader can judge the content of what follows. The interested
reader will find more detail in my book.
- Science is obliged to explain, or try to
explain, phenomena in this universe. Life is no exception. A
scientific explanation of life, including ourselves, is part
of what science is about. It is wrong to attack the idea of a
science-based explanation of life while championing science per
se. Such an attack is an attack on all of science.
- The Bible is true. It is revealed truth.
Science is true. It is discovered truth. This implies that the
Bible and science are compatible. The core content of my book
is to show this compatibility. I believe in the Bible and I accept
the validity of mainstream science. I accept scientific method,
as a whole. Hence, I cannot accept an attack on the idea of a
science-based explanation for life, as this implies an attack
on all science.
- The Torah tells us that all phenomena, this
is all phenomena including life, have a science-based explanation
which human beings are capable of discovering. This idea is a
consequence of the point that human beings have absolute free
will to believe or reject the Torah. The reader will have to
look at my book for a deeper explanation.
- The above point logically requires that I
accept that science will one day provide an explanation for life,
including human life.
- But nothing that I previously said compels
me to accept that Neo-Darwinian evolution, or any kind of evolution,
is the science-based explanation for the existence of life that
the Torah calls for. Such an explanation will one day be available.
But that day may be in the future.
- While I am not compelled to accept a particular
theory, my arguments should be grounded in science rather than
theology. The validity of a scientific theory must be based on
scientific method. I believe that the Bible is true. But I am,
nevertheless, not permitted to use religious arguments in this
essay. Whatever I say about evolution needs to be based on science.
- There are people who follow a different model
than I do in assessing the relationship between science and the
Bible. I not only hold both to be true, but I also hold both
to be collaborative and compatible. But there are people who
hold that the Bible and science are not collaborative or compatible.
A Deity who can create a world can obviously create a world that
appears to be billions of years old, even if it is only 6000
years old. Such people, who happen to accept the Bible, will
argue from the Bible against science. Others, who happen to accept
science, will argue from science against the Bible. This is perfectly
legitimate as far as I am concerned. But I cannot do this, because
I hold that Bible and science are, in fact, compatible. Hence,
any arguments for or against evolution that I use, or accept,
need to be based on science.
- There is, in my opinion, compelling scientific
evidence that some aspects of evolution have happened in the
past and are in process now. It is my belief at this time (and
I am always free to change my opinion in the future) that whatever
science-based explanation for life we finally end with will include
elements of evolution theory. It is also my belief, based on
less compelling evidence, that the current theory of evolution
has a number of deficiencies. The final version will not be the
current theory, though I do not know how far the final result
will differ from the current theory.
- The result of the above is that I accept
the idea of evolution and am agnostic respecting the current
theory on the basis that all the evidence has not yet been presented.
- The above position does not in any way affect
my belief in the Bible, as I discuss in my book. This puts me
at odds with some Torah authorities who hold that evolution,
per se is incompatible with Torah, and the proper relationship
between science and Torah is where the two systems are separated,
as noted previously. Others hold that evolution is perfectly
acceptable within Torah, though some specific versions of evolution
are contrary to the Torah view. A small minority hold that all
versions of evolution are acceptable to Torah.
- My position is of the middle variety. I accept
evolution as a given, though not necessarily the theory now so
identified. But I do not accept Neo-Darwinian evolution. I am
influenced in this view by the fact that many Torah authorities
find Neo-Darwinism objectionable. But the essential justification
for my position is that there are, what I consider to be, compelling
scientific reasons against this specific theory.
With the basis for my views made clear, I
am now in a position to discuss Neo-Darwinian evolution.
Is Darwinian evolution truth or fiction?
The theory of evolution proposes that life
arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed (evolved)
on its own from the simple to the more complex. Specific evolution
theories provide mechanisms and procedures whereby the above
takes place. The leading current theory began with Charles Darwin,
and after modification in the 1940's to account for newly discovered
facts, came to be known as Neo-Darwinian evolution (NDE). The
NDE theory calls for a number of mechanisms or procedures. Here
are the most important to this theory.
- Organisms maintain basic genetic stability. Otherwise children would not resemble parents, and
a fly might produce a wasp for offspring. Nevertheless, purely
random replication errors introduce infinitesimally tiny genetic
changes from generation to generation.
- These changes are purely random. There is no preference for changes that are useful
as opposed to changes that are not useful, or even harmful. Harmful
changes do not survive as these tend to kill the host. But useful
changes will introduce a survival advantage and thus propagate
within a population over many generations. The mechanism is natural
and random, and no preferential treatment or direction is involved.
- Most changes are not helpful. But there are very many changes, and some few are
helpful. The changes are infinitesimally tiny because large,
or jointly multiple changes, which support each other, are highly
unlikely. Large seeming changes are a consequence of the cumulative
action of a sequence of many tiny advantageous changes following
each other.
The above leads to a number of logical consequences
and expectations that can be tested against reality.
- Basic evolution theory starts with inanimate
matter. There were once specific suggestions,
that seemed to be verified by experiments, as to how life developed
(evolved) out of non-life over a period of a billion or more
years. But then it was discovered that life appeared virtually
simultaneously with the first water on the planet, some four
billion years ago. No one has any acceptable idea how it is possible
for life to have appeared so soon after the formation of this
planet, and essentially simultaneously with the appearance of
water. One suggestion is that the seedlings of life came to us
from outside, from space. None of the ideas are fully satisfactory,
and evolution scientists appear to have uncoupled the origin
of life from the evolution of higher forms out of simpler ones.
This does not constitute a flaw in the theory of evolution. Science
will eventually come up with a working explanation for the beginning
of life. And the theory would survive, in modified form, even
if it were shown that the first life was created.
- Evolution, including NDE, claims to account
for the beginning of life and the progressive evolution of the
most complex organism in a continuous chain starting with the
simplest organisms. I discuss in my
book the transition from dominance by light-colored moths to
dark-colored moths as the surrounding background in Manchester,
England darkened due to pollution. I note that we do not know
whether this is a real case of evolution since there was no genetic
testing when this happened. More recent cases show that this
was indeed a true evolutionary transition. This, and other instances
of evolution on a small scale, show that micro-evolution is real.
NDE supporters claim that the theory is proven thereby. But that
is not so since the crucial question of randomness is not addressed
here. More to the point, there is not a single instance where
mutations have been observed to change an animal to a different
species, as the theory requires. Evolution on a macro scale is
inferred by evolution supporters from observations of evolution
on a micro scale. The suggestion that this might happen, is certainly
legitimate. But the claim that this is true, is a claim without
any evidence, and certainly without proof.
- Each tiny change needs to propagate and
become established in a population before the next tiny change
starts to take over. There has to
be some small time of stability for a change to take hold. This
means that the fossil record should show a continuum of numerous
slightly different, but very similar, life forms. That is not
the case. There are enormous gaps in the fossil record. The response
is that the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence of
change. Much evidence could be destroyed over the many millions
of years we are dealing with. Furthermore we have unearthed only
a tiny fraction of what is yet to be found.
- An absence of what we expect to find is
suspicious, but it does not prove that the theory is wrong. But the same cannot be said for existing evidence.
It is clear from the fossil record that organisms show remarkable
stability over long time periods, while NDE calls for ongoing
change. The fossil record also shows the appearance of new life
forms in essentially zero time, geologically speaking. But NDE
does not permit this. This information has led to the formation
of a rival evolution theory known as punctuated equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium (PE) calls for long periods of stability
interrupted by abrupt changes brought on by a major disruption
in the environment. But this theory has not taken over first
place from NDE because it has numerous problems of its own. Currently
there are two serious theories, NDE and PE, followed by a number
of less accepted proposals. No single theory accounts for all
the observed facts.
The NDE theory is based on the idea of an accumulation of tiny
changes, each of which does not depend on other changes. Darwin
himself notes in his Origin of Species that "my
theory would absolutely break down" if tiny independent
changes were not possible. This is the basis of the book Darwin's
Black Box by biochemist Michael J. Behe, who argues against
Darwin on the basis of what he calls "irreducible complexity."
Behe defines this phrase to mean "a single system composed
of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to
the basic function, wherein the removal of any of these parts
causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Such
a system has to be brought into being whole because the absence
of any of its parts renders the systems non-functional. Hence
such a system cannot be produced by a succession of multiple
small and independent changes. This is discussed on page 39 of
Behe's book. The author then proceeds for another two hundred
odd pages to demonstrate why he holds that the biochemical basis
of life constitutes an irreducibly complex structure. I do not
understand biochemistry well enough to judge between the technical
points that Behe makes and the technical responses of his opponents
who support NDE. All I can say is that this would kill NDE should
Behe be proven correct.
- The impact of a succession of numerous
small changes is examined from a different perspective by Information
Theory physicist, Lee Spetner, in his book Not by Chance. Spetner addresses two
questions. How much new information must be transferred by each
small change for that change to do anything useful, and how many
generations does it take for a change to propagate throughout
a population before the population is ready to deal with a successive
change. Here I am better able to make an informed judgment respecting
the arguments because my technical work involves information
theory. Spetner shows that there has not been enough time since
the big bang beginning of the universe for the transfer of information
needed to change one organism to another by means of small successive
changes. Spetner, unlike Behe, does accept that evolution, per
se, has scientific validity. In fact he goes on to propose
a version of evolution that is in line with his calculations.
What he argues against is the NDE version which is totally impossible
if his numbers are correct. My opinion does not mean much in
a debate on this level. Nevertheless, I will note that Spetner's
numbers seem right-on to me.
Modes of discourse
Here I would like to examine, not so much
arguments for or against evolution in general, or Neo-Darwinism
in particular, but rather the way some of this debate is being
conducted. I will accuse the Neo-Darwinists of frequently engaging
in a mode of debate which is not scientific, but polemical. And
to be honest with the reader, I will tell you that my way of
doing this is also not science-based but an exercise in polemics.
- "It is no secret that science and religion,
once allied in homage to divinely crafted harmonies, have long
been growing apart." Modern science has shown that "the
immanent, caring G-d of the Western monotheism may never have
been more than a fiction..." Thus begins a two-part book
review, of twelve books opposed to evolution, in the 4 &
18 October, 2001 issue of The New York Review of Books
by Frederick Crews under the title "Saving Us from Darwin."
Each review runs to several thousand words, as one might expect,
given a discussion of twelve books. The reviewer is not friendly
towards the books. That is his right. The reviewer is also not
friendly towards religion. That is also his right. The reviewer
equates Darwinian evolution, and Darwin himself, as an attack
on religion. This is also the reviewer's right. The reviewer
is concerned that religious zealots are taking over the world
and evolution, which is clearly the truth, has few defenders.
Neither the liberal left, nor the conservative right, nor the
middle-road press and not even the scientists are stepping up
to do the job. They are all intimidated by the powerful religious
onslaught. This is the opinion of the reviewer and he has the
right to express it. Here are a few representative quotes to
show what I mean.
- "Darwin, who saw at close range the
cruelty, the flawed designs, and the prodigal wastefulness of
life, capped for him by the death of his daughter Annie. He decided
that he would rather forsake his Christian faith than lay all
that carnage at G-d's door. ...G-d is utterly extraneous to evolution
as Darwin and his modern successors have understood it. Darwin's
contemporaries saw at once what a heavy blow he was striking
against piety. Darwinian science is a threat to theological dogma
of all but the blandest kind." Darwinian evolution is true
and "the explanatory power of natural selection removes
the last obstacle to our [choosing to] disbelieve in G-d..."
Given the above, we should not be surprised that people who have
"a prior religious commitment, not a concern for scientific
accuracy...", and other religious zealots, try to "exclude
evolution from the public school curriculum..." and publish
books that, in essence, use "the Bible for 'proof' that
nature is subordinate to G-d." We are under attack. But
there is no champion to save civilization. "Political suspicion
on the left; fear of chaos on the right. Who will stand up for
evolutionary biology and insist that it be taught without censorship
or dilution?" Even the science establishment is not able
to help, because "... so formidable a political influence
is this wave of resistance [against Darwinian evolution] that
some Darwinian thinkers... feel obliged to placate it with tactful
sophistries..."
The author apparently believes that the books
he is reviewing have had great influence
on society. He apparently feels that the authors of these books
have an agenda outside
the science-related issues that the books claim to address. These
are legitimate
questions, and he has every right to bring these matters up in
a book review. I do not
agree with many things that this book review claims. But it is
not my intent to prepare
a critique of the review; my views are of minor importance here.
But the material
presented by me so far, is not what the book review is really
about. The punch line is in
the last two paragraphs. "Think of the shadows now falling
across our planet:
overpopulation, ...maldistributed resources,... ethnic and religious
hatred,.... So long as
we regard ourselves as creatures apart who need only repent of
our personal sins to
retain heaven's blessing, we won't take the full measure of our
species-wide
responsibility for these calamities." The Bible and religion
are doing great harm and
should apparently be eliminated. But "A Darwinian understanding
of how we got that
way could be the first step toward a wider ethics commensurate
with our real
transgressions, not against G-d but against the Earth itself
and its myriad forms of life."
We live in a free country, thank G-d. The
author of the book review has every right to
say the same thing and to thank Darwin. But I would say that
it is disingenuous to
disguise as a book review as an agenda to replace the Bible with
the Origin of Species.
- I have previously tried to show, by analysis
of a book review, that supporters of Darwinian evolution hold
this idea to be more than a theory, but a way of life. I have
also tried to show that this is sometimes presented by subtle,
and less than open, means. Here I would like to discuss a more
direct book review, written by a scientist who is qualified to
discuss the science. Nevertheless, even here, where we are dealing
with what should be a straight forward matter of science, the
Darwinian-accepting author feels obliged to stray into a personal
attack on the author of the book he is reviewing. What is it
about Neo-Darwinism that causes its adherents to be so tenaciously
committed to the cause?
The book in question is Not By Chance
(The Judaica Press) by Dr. Lee Spetner. I have previously noted
some of the points against Neo-Darwinism presented in this book,
and I will not repeat this material here. I will, however, remind
the reader that Spetner does not attack the theory of evolution,
per se, but only the Neo-Darwinian version. In fact, Spetner
presents his own suggestion for an evolution theory at the end
of the book. I emphasize these points, because the reviewer,
who believes in evolution but not in the Bible, cannot and does
not take issue with the book respecting evolution overall, but
only the Neo-Darwinian version. Nevertheless, an attack on Darwin
causes the reviewer to step outside the mode of accepted science-based
discourse, as I will try to show below.
The review is by physicist, Dr. Mark Perakh,
who like Dr. Spetner, has excellent scientific credentials involving
degrees, publications, and work experience. Both are experts
in information theory and probability mathematics. I will readily
acknowledge that I am not at the expert or stature level of either
of these individuals, and I would have a hard time to hold my
own in one-on-one debate. Nevertheless, I feel competent to follow
the discussion because my specialty of spectrum analysis as applied
to communications relies on information theory and probability
analysis. I think that I understand what both individuals claim,
and I will note that I side with Spetner. But that is of no consequence
to this discussion which is not about the technical merits, but
about the non-technical content of the book review. The review
appears under the title A Lost Chance,
which is posted on Dr. Perakh's web site on bigfoot.com.
The review runs to a bit over 7 pages of 10-point
type. Nearly six pages consist of a scientific analysis of Spetner's
claims and counter arguments against those claims. As I said
already, my opinion is that Perakh did not succeed in damaging
Spetner's position. But my interest in this discussion is to
consider the implications of the remaining, approximately 1.5,
pages of the book review that do not deal with science. Perakh
opens his review by acknowledging that "Spetner is a scientist
with respectable credentials... Spetner offers a variety of serious
arguments in support of his views which resulted from a thorough
study of his subject." Very nice. One fine scientist acknowledging
the credentials of another fine scientist. But the review of
the book does not begin at this point. Instead we are treated
to an attack on the intentions, perceived bias, and possibly
even the integrity, of Dr. Spetner. What is this about?
What this is about is a sentence in the preface,
on page ix of Spetner's book. Perakh quotes the sentence, "...
I met the evolutionary theory in a serious way, and I found it
hard to believe. It clashed not only with my religious views,
but also with my intuition about how information in living organisms
could have developed." This sentence is part of a discussion
where Spetner tells something about himself. He tells us that
he first "...met the evolution theory in a serious way..."
while at Johns Hopkins University in 1963. He subsequently studies
evolution for the next 25 years, and became a recognized expert
in the field, which even Perakh acknowledges. Then in 1987, he
read "Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker.
I could hardly contain myself while reading it because I had
long ago thought through his arguments and rejected them. I knew
what was wrong with them. I felt I had to write a book setting
forth my own views on evolution." The resulting book Not
By Chance was published ten years later in 1997.
Perakh proceeds to attack Spetner on account
of this sentence. "This is a damning admission for a scientist.
The latter is supposed to base his/her views only on facts established
via a verifiable and reproducible procedure of a completely unbiased
exploration. Religious views... are supposed to be kept aside
from his/her scientific search for truth. As to intuition....
as often as not leads nowhere... Spetner seems to have had an
agenda." There is no mention of religion in the next over
200 pages of the book. Perakh agrees that "Spetner is a
scientist with respectable credential." Perakh agrees that
the book proper deals only with science. But a biographical notation
in the preface, that the author has religious beliefs, makes
the book suspect, and Perakh proceeds to attack Spetner and his
motivations for several paragraphs beyond the one I quoted above.
Let us examine the implications of the "damning admission"
on the basis of scientific procedure. We will then be in a position
to decide whether the attack by Perakh can somehow be justified.
The Character of Physical Law by Richard Feynman (M.I.T. Press) is a classic in
the field of explanation on scientific method. Feynman is considered
one of the finest scientists of this, or any other, time. Surely
he knows what is, or is not, proper in scientific exploration.
We have the following statement on page 156 of this book. "In
general we look for a new law by the following process. First
we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to
see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right.
Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, ..."
Etc. But anybody can "guess." I can make a thousand
guesses an hour, but I am still waiting to win the Nobel Prize.
It is not enough to just "guess." Feynman tells us
on page 171 that "What we need is imagination." Feynman
did not just win the Nobel Prize because he was lucky. He is
considered one of the greatest scientists of all time because
he was able to look at the world with a special quality; with
imagination, and, indeed, with "intuition." Yes, Perakh
is right. Intuition usually leads nowhere. But without intuition
we are always nowhere.
Perakh is upset that intuition and religious
belief caused Spetner to seriously examine evolution. The original
examination is a guess, as Feynman tells us. It makes no difference
how or why we make the guess. Indeed, experience, imagination
and intuition will likely lead to a better guess than lack of
these attributes. But that is only in respect to an examination
of the quality of the guess. The source of the guess is absolutely
irrelevant, provided we examine the implications of the guess
in a proper manner. As Feynman tells us, "First we guess.
Then we compute the consequences..." The "verifiable
and reproducible procedure...", that Perakh is concerned
about belongs in the second step – after the guess. And
what is it that Spetner did after his initial guess that something
is not right with the theory of evolution? He spent twenty five
years analyzing the implications of that guess. Perakh agrees
that Spetner made "a thorough study of his subject."
What else should Spetner have done, and what did he do that he
should not have done to avoid this personal attack?
- Dr. Mark Perakh, like Dr. Lee Spetner, is
"a scientist with respectable credentials." He
certainly knows elementary scientific procedures as well as I
do. Yet he acts as if he
does not understand the basics. "This is a damning admission
for a scientist." What is
it about Neo-Darwinian adherents that would cause such behavior?
- Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker,
which Dr. Spetner credits as a catalyst in the writing of his
book, is arguably the best known and most influential popular
writing in support of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
Richard Dawkins, Professor at Oxford University, is the author
of a number of books, popular and technical papers and a frequent
speaker on matters related to evolution. If anybody can be said
to speak on behalf of Neo-Darwinian thought, it is Richard Dawkins.
That being the case, I think it behooves us to examine what this
man has to say.
Richard Dawkins makes it clear that not only
the theory of evolution, per se, but the Neo-Darwinian
version is absolutely true and correct. Any disagreement is due
either to ignorance or a personal agenda, usually of a religious
variety. He also makes it clear that he is an atheist based on
proof, mostly from evolution. Not only is belief in the Bible
provably wrong according to Dawkins, but belief in the Bible
is evil. Religion should be eliminated and replaced by science,
especially Neo-Darwinism. This is strong language, and it may
be that I am exaggerating, because not all writings and talks
by Dawkins convey this message. But much of his material does
convey these ideas. Permit me to illustrate by quotations from
two articles and one lecture. The articles "When Religion
Steps on Science's Turf", and "The Improbability of
G-d" were published in the Free Inquiry Magazine,
volume 18 numbers 2 and 3. This is the magazine of The
Council for Secular Humanism. The title of the
lecture is "Is Science a Religion?" Dawkins has presented
this talk a number of times, most recently on December 7th, 2001
at the University of London and in Manchester in January, 2002.
The text from which I am quoting is from a talk before the Humanist
Society of America in 1996.
"There is no reason for believing that
any sort of gods exist and quite good reason for believing that
they do not exist and never have... We now know that the order
and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about
through an entirely different process, a process that works without
need for any designer.... This is the process of evolution by
natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin... [T]iny chance
steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its
predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence... [Some
changes do nothing, and some changes do harm but] changes that
turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species
and become the norm... [And how does one account for complex
structures, such as the eye, for instance?] If you assume a sufficiently
large number of sufficiently small differences between each evolutionary
stage and its predecessor, you are bound to be able to derive
a full, complex working eye from bare skin." Dawkins asks,
"Why do people believe in G-d?" He answers that "For
most people [it is ] the ancient Argument from Design."
But the "Argument from Design, then, has been destroyed
as a reason for believing..." by the previous explanations
of evolution. Therefore, we should all become atheists.
A small editorializing digression, if I
may. Please note the explanation of the workings of Neo-Darwinian
evolution given to us by Richard Dawkins. This is his language;
I am not inventing anything. "[A] large number of sufficiently
small differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor
[which] eventually spread through the species and become the
norm." These are the issues that Behe and Spetner address
in their books. Behe claims that the steps cannot be made "sufficiently
small" because the smallest available steps still contain
irreducible complexity. Spetner computes how many generations
it takes to "spread through the species [to] become the
norm." He looks at how many "sufficiently small differences"
it takes to become the eye that Dawkins proposes. He multiplies
the two numbers and finds that the universe has not existed long
enough for this to happen.
Dawkins is not happy with religion, as I previously
noted. He is particularly upset with the Catholic Church. I do
not know why. A primary reason why he is unhappy with religion
is because he believes that religion is intruding upon the domain
of science. Here are a few examples to illustrate what I mean.
"There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic
of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain
of science... Catholic morality demands the presence of a great
gulf between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom.
Such a gulf is fundamentally anti-evolutionary. The sudden injection
of an immortal soul in the time line is an anti-evolutionary
intrusion into the domain of science... You can kill adult animals
for meat, but abortion and euthanasia are murder because human
life is involved... [Dawkins objects to] Catholic creationists
such as Michael Behe. Even so, given a choice between honest-to-goodness
fundamentalism on the one hand, and the obscurantist, disingenuous
doublethink of the Roman Catholic Church on the other, I know
which I prefer."
Religion intrudes upon science, according
to Dawkins. But that is not the real problem. The real problem
is that religion is a menace. Science is honest, honorable and
good, while religion is, well judge for yourself. "Science
is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines
around... Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious
faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence
is its pride and joy... Science, then, is free of the main vice
of religion, which is faith.... I think a case can be made that
faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to
the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." And why is
religion and faith so terrible? Because it values human life
over other life. "Should we, for example, follow the right-to-life
lobby, which is wholly preoccupied with human life, and
the value of a human fetus with the faculties of a worm over
the life of a thinking and feeling chimpanzee?" Dawkins
would like to see a major change in education because, "Religion
is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely
accepted, without question – without even noticing how bizarre
it is – that parents have a total and absolute say in what
their children are going to be... Do you see what I mean about
mental child abuse?" The Bible is to be replaced by Neo-Darwinian
evolution. If the complaint and the remedy sound familiar, that
is because it is familiar. You heard the same from Fredrick Crews
at the outset of this section of my essay.
- I don't accept the Neo-Darwinian theory of
evolution, while Dawkins is a passionate supporter. That does
not bother me. Science has a way of eventually getting to the
truth, and nothing that Dawkins says can change that. As I note
in my book, "Those who believe in Torah are firmly convinced
that eventually we will have full agreement, when evolution facts
catch up with the evolution philosophy currently pretending to
be a science." It is right, and proper, and desirable that
Dawkins, the scientist, should publish scientific papers about
evolution. That is how science makes progress. But I am bothered
when Dawkins, the priest, wants to set the religious instruction
curriculum for my children. And contrary to the laments from
Crews and Dawkins, that curriculum is already top-heavy with
Neo-Darwinian baggage, as I discuss next.
Teaching evolution
I will confess that I have not done the research
on this section that I originally intended to do. This essay
is already much longer than I think reasonable, and I have spent
more time on it than I originally planned. Hence what follows
has no scientific validity. I have not done a literature search
or a comparison of textbooks or school curricula. I have simply
picked up a biology book used in public school and analyzed the
content respecting evolution. The book in question is the Teacher's
Annotated Edition of Biological Science: A Molecular Approach,
D.C. Heath and Company, 1990.
Over 100 pages of this 700 odd page book are
devoted to evolution. The glossary of terms defines evolution
as: "Change through time...[etc]; evolution results in the
development of new species." The index has a number of entries
for "Darwin, Charles," but no entries for Darwinian
evolution or Neo-Darwinian evolution. Here are the sub-headings
under the main heading of evolution: "behavior and, of birds,
of brain, of cells, chemical, concept map, cultural, of cytochrome
c, of DNA, ecological evidence for, evidence for, genetic evidence,
humans, of insects, mechanisms, of mitochondria, of mitosis,
molecular evidence for, of nervous system, of nitrogenous wastes,
origin of new species, of peppered moth, of photorespiration,
of photosynthesis, of plants, of plastids, of pollen, populations
evidence for, of proteins, of seeds, theory of."
There are a total of 31 headings. involving
116 pages. Of these, 3 pages are devoted to the "theory
of," 15 pages are devoted to entries involving "evidence
of," and the rest provide illustrative examples of evolution.
Evolution of humans is given the most space at 27 pages. Some
of the entries include, not only examples but also instructions
for experimental investigations on the part of the student. Thus,
the section on the "peppered moth" includes the testing
of the relationship between light and dark colored moths. I mentioned
these moths previously in this essay, and at greater length in
my book. Entries either provide evidence for evolution, illustrate
the workings of evolution or provide instructions for experimental
verification of evolution. And remember, please, what evolution
is about. "Evolution results in the development of new species."
There are no ifs, no buts, and no maybes.
Evolution is real. Look at all the evidence; look at all the
descriptions; look at the results of the experiments. This is
how the world works. Look at the beautifully rendered illustrations.
Look at the common features in color photos of skulls and skeletons.
Look at the clear progression from our ancestors to us on the
morphological and biochemical trees. Look at a listing of comparative
characteristics involving posture, legs, arms, feet, teeth, skull...
How exciting to look at a picture of the skull of our ancestor
from a million years ago. Look and learn. This is science. This
is reality. This is evolution. This is truth. And while this
designation is not explicitly given, the information provided
is in accord with the specifics of Neo-Darwinian evolution. In
other words, not only is evolution per se true, but Neo-Darwinian
evolution is true.
Now compare this picture with the book Rare
Earth by scientists Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee. The
book was published in the year 2000, and the information is current.
The authors are fully committed to evolution and have excellent
scientific credentials. The book has received excellent reviews
from scientist and lay person alike. The book presents an exciting
and positive view of evolution. Nowhere in the book is there
the slightest hint that the authors might doubt the reality of
evolution. But the authors tell it like it is. They convey the
excitement of the search for truth. And they are themselves true
to the current level of what we know. Why are these context-setting
words and phrases, used by Ward and Brownlee, not included in
the textbook: "fortuitous, possibility, hypothesis, probably,
belief, imply, may have been..." It may have been like this,
but maybe not like this. We hypothesize that this is what happened.
It could have happened this way. But also could have happened
some other way. These words apply to evolution as a whole, and
these words certainly apply to Neo-Darwinian evolution specifically.
Evolution is the best science-based explanation
we currently have for the existence of life. The Neo-Darwinian
version is the best of the lot in this category. But that does
not make it revealed truth. There are many problems; many gaps.
And it is not at all certain that this will be the position of
science in the future. It is not anti-science to reject Neo-Darwinian
evolution. Yet those who do wish to accept this theory, have
good scientific grounds to do so. But it needs to be done provisionally.
To insist that it is absolutely true and without flaw is an exercise
not in science, but in faith. And we know from Dawkins that to
resort to faith is as fatal as smallpox.
My agenda
I will say it directly, in case it is not
clear – I have an agenda. My agenda is to oppose the scientific
certainty, and assumed moral superiority derived from that certainty,
exhibited by some staunch Neo-Darwinist adherents. All that I
have said previously is by way of explanatory introduction and
evidence to be used in the execution of this agenda. The previous
material, with the addition of a few additional items, is referenced
in support of this agenda.
I think that all would agree that Richard
Dawkins is, if not the foremost, then certainly among the foremost
spokespersons on behalf of Neo-Darwinian Evolution Theory. I
have used the abbreviation NDE in this essay, and much literature
uses the abbreviation NDT. Both designations refer to the same
thing. Richard Dawkins is a prolific and articulate writer and
excellent public speaker. He is much sought after as a speaker,
and his speaking calendar appears to be always full, as represented
on various web sites. He has been accorded many public honors,
including election as a Fellow of the Royal Society. Richard
Dawkins is an influential person. He has almost unlimited access
to public channels of communication to get his message out. And
people listen to, and are influenced by, what he has to tell
us.
Much of what professor Dawkins says and writes
is purely in the realm of science, on which I have no personal
comment, given that I am not qualified to speak about evolution
science at such a level. That, of course, does not mean that
I have to agree with him. I do, in fact disagree, because I have
every right to accept the scientific conclusions of other scientists
who disagree with Dawkins. Therein lies one of my "quarrels"
with professor Dawkins, so to speak. He will not accept even
the tiniest disagreement with the NDE theory. People who disagree
with him are labeled either as scientific ignoramuses or religious
fanatics. But the level of "truth" that he professes
to hold on this matter is nothing short of fanatical itself.
Thus we are told in his book The Selfish Gene
that "Today the theory of evolution is about as much
in doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the sun."
I simply cannot believe that he means this literally. Surely
this statement is only intended to emphasize that the NDE theory
is on very, very solid ground. Surely professor Dawkins knows
that the movement of the earth around the sun is not a theory.
It is not even a law, but rather a fact to be observed and measured.
Not even the theory of gravitation could be as certain as the
simple fact that the earth moves around the sun. But Dawkins
acts as if he means it. Does he have any right to mean it? Let's
take a look.
- The NDE theory has several rivals, of which
the best known is punctuated equilibrium. These theories are
proposed by world-renowned scientists and have nothing to do
with the Bible. Possibly all of these people are wrong and NDE
is the real thing. But how does Dawkins know that? Dawkins tells
us in River out of Eden that "Scientific beliefs
are supported by evidence, and get results. Myths and faith do
not do that." There is today no scientific evidence that
permits an unambiguous choice between the various theories of
evolution. How did Dawkins make his choice? He tells us that
"... when two opposite points of view are expressed with
equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway
between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."
There is much scientific evidence that NDE is wrong. There is
also a great deal of explanation and response to this evidence
to justify an acceptance of NDE. I believe that the counter evidence
is not fully refuted and I do not accept NDE. Certainly I would
not expect Dawkins to accept such a position. But I would expect
him to accept that just possibly his side is "simply wrong."
Instead we are told that there can be no doubt whatsoever. This
is inexplicable on a purely scientific basis. Scientists who
focus only on the science do it differently. Here is an example.
I have already introduced the reader to Dr.
Lee Spetner and his book Not by Chance,
which argues against NDE. In the year 2000, Dr. Edward E. Max,
a frequent contributor of materials in support of NDE, asked
Dr. Spetner to provide a critique of his pro-NDE essay The
Evolution of Improved Fitness which the reader will find
on the Talking Origins Archives web site at www.talkingorigins.org.
A back-and-forth dialogue ensued which was published by Max on
the Talking Origins Archives web site, and Spetner
published his version on the True Origin Archive: URL
www.trueorigin.org. The two postings are almost identical, except
that Spetner's version, which was posted later, includes a few
additional comments. It is not my intent to go through this fascinating
exchange, which is still in progress as I write these words in
February, 2002. The content now runs to nearly twenty thousand
words, and who knows where it will end. I would encourage the
reader to look at this exchange to see what arguments for and
against evolution look like when dealt with on a purely scientific
basis. I will just quote the few sentences that introduce the
important notion of symmetry in the arguments.
You will recall that the definition of evolution,
provided in the textbook, includes the statement that "Evolution
results in the development of new species." Change within
a species generally involves micro evolution, while the development
of a new species is a case of macro evolution. About 2000 words,
or ten percent of the exchange, is on the topic of macro evolution.
Spetner challenges Max thus; "Despite the insistence of
evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is no more than an
improbable story. No one has ever shown that macro evolution
can work." Max agrees that we are not currently able to
demonstrate a series of mutations involving macro evolution.
But, "An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would
be that our inability to observe such a series cannot be used
as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations
did NOT (sic) occur." Spetner does not accept this answer.
"Now Ed, that's ridiculous! Those two statements are not
symmetrical.... You, who are basing your theory of evolution
on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that
it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged
to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove non-existence."
I would now like to examine the notion of symmetry in arguments
for and against evolution.
- Consider the defendant analogy used earlier
in this essay. The prosecution offers evidence that the defendant,
in this case the theory of evolution, is guilty. Suppose the
prosecution provides a million items of evidence that point to
guilt, while the defense provides only one exculpating item of
evidence. Does that mean that a guilty verdict is assured given
the million-to-one ratio? The answer is no, because the two sides
are not symmetrical. All the defense has to do is provide one
item of evidence that proves that the defendant could not have
done it and the trial is over.
Here is another example, which is more in
line with the macro evolution issue, discussed previously. The
prosecution claims that the crime involved exceptionally skilled
shooting because the rapidly moving victim was shot three times
from a long distance. Exceptionally skilled shooting is part
of the theory of the crime presented by the prosecution. The
defense argues that the defendant has poor eye sight and has
never been known to use firearms; how did he do it? The prosecution
responds that they do not know how he did it, but he must have
done it because they have a thousand items of evidence that point
to the defendant. Besides, our inability to demonstrate how it
happened "cannot be used as a justification for the assumption
that... [it] did NOT occur." Would you say that "that's
ridiculous" if you were on the jury? Of course you would.
The arguments are not symmetrical. The prosecution is obliged
to show how it could have happened even if they cannot show that
it did actually happen.
Symmetry, or rather lack of symmetry, in the
arguments has been a prominent characteristic in how evolution
has been presented to the public from its first appearance. The
vast majority of Darwin's writings consist of detailed descriptions
of alleged examples of the work of evolution. This sort of detail
is frequently cited as the major strength of Origin of
Species. The same applies to the material in the textbook
that I previously described. It is filled with detailed descriptions
of results ascribed to evolution. One is overwhelmed with details.
It seems impossible that an idea that has so much going for it
cannot be true. But it is a false symmetry. All it takes is one
contrary proof to falsify the theory, just as in the example
with the million items of evidence for a crime. I have previously
cited numerous science-based arguments against Neo-Darwinian
evolution, and it is inconceivable that any scientist would insist
that the theory is as certain as the movement of the earth around
the sun. But Dawkins, and others, do make that assertion. The
question is, why?
- I do not know why a number of respected scientists,
who should know better, insist that the NDE theory is not only
a possible explanation for the origin and variation of life,
but actually the one and only absolutely true explanation. I
will propose a hypothesis. But it is only a guess, because the
matter seems inexplicable to me. My hypothesis is based on the
inverse connection between Neo-Darwinism and the Bible and the
direct connection between Neo-Darwinism and a particular moral
position.
I have noted previously that Dawkins is an
atheist who holds that belief in the Bible is wrong and recourse
to faith is evil. He appears determined to eliminate all religious
education and substitute the teaching of Darwinian evolution.
He argues that abortion and euthanasia appear to be perfectly
reasonable once we eliminate the supposed human superiority conferred
by the soul. Absent the soul, it is clear that human beings are
animals just like any other animal. This means that we should
treat non-humans better than we treat them, and we can eliminate
humans who have not yet achieved intellectual capability (a fetus
to be aborted) or humans who lose their intellectual capability
due to illness or old age (euthanasia). Dawkins learns all this,
and more, from Darwinian evolution. But these beliefs are not,
in my opinion, a natural consequence of belief in evolution,
as I shall try to show below. One can be a firm believer in evolution
and oppose abortion. And one can be a firm believer in the Bible
and oppose mistreatment of animals. Whatever moral position one,
takes whether for or against abortion, or animal rights, or whatever,
needs to be supported by a system of logic and reason. Dawkins
claims that his moral position is derived from, and supported
by, the logic of evolution. He is certain of his moral position
and he is certain that the Bible is false because the theory
of evolution is true. It is my hypothesis that Dawkins cannot
accept any doubt about evolution, no matter how minor, because
he will not accept any doubt about his moral philosophy. But
there is a fallacy here, because a belief in evolution need not
lead to this philosophy.
- Dawkins says that evolution theory proves
that human beings are just like any other animal, and humans
have no soul. He is, of course mistaken, as even a superficial
reading of the Bible will show. Dawkins is confusing the account
of the creation of Adam's body and the bringing of that body
to life with the creation and infusion of his human soul. These
are two totally different matters, and these are not connected.
Certainly there are significant issues between the Bible and
evolution theory on the question of when Adam's body came into
being and how long it took to form it. But this has absolutely
nothing to do with the soul. A recent essay at www.aish.com explores
this very question. Dr. Gerald Schroeder, who is not a fan of
NDE theory notes that, "Whether the making of Adam prior
to creation of the soul lasted a microsecond or a million years,
is not certain from the Torah." I note in my book that,
"The Torah says that we share the condition of having a
body with all animals, but it is the condition of having a human
soul which makes us different. Can evolution science find the
soul? Certainly not yet." Dawkins can choose to believe
whatever he wishes about the soul, but evolution has nothing
to do with it. It is not the usual case, but one can believe
in both evolution and in a soul. I find his chain of reasoning
in favor of abortion and euthanasia, based on the absence of
a soul, to be thin. But whatever the merits of that argument;
it does not derive from evolution.
Dawkins argues that belief in the Bible leads
to slaughter, as exemplified by religious wars. An ethics devoid
of the Bible would be better. He is apparently ignorant of the
estimated twenty or more millions who died in the communist gulags
where the Bible was the enemy. Dawkins complains that belief
in the Bible is an obstacle to euthanasia. But evolution would
show the proper course. Does he perhaps have in mind the re-establishment
of a modern version of the Nazi Reich Committee for Scientific
Research of Hereditary and Severe Constitutional Diseases whose
purpose was the euthanasia of genetically defective Germans.
About 100,000 Germans were killed under this program, known by
the code name T-4. And then we have the programs to eliminate
genetically defective peoples, such as Jews and Gypsies, where
the numbers run into the millions. Dawkins is unhappy that a
human soul gets in the way of abortion on demand. A program based
on evolution theory would be better. Well, I propose a program
to test the genetic status of every fetus so that genetically
superior children would be safeguarded on the basis of survival
of the fittest. This would require that a pregnancy of a "superior"
fetus be carried to term, even at severe risk to the mother.
We are genetically programmed by the blind forces of evolution
to need and want meat in our diet. But all animals, whether human
or not are the same. So let us open cannibalism butcher shops.
It will save the cost of a funeral.
Let me be absolutely clear on this, ladies
and gentlemen. I am not suggesting that Richard Dawkins is in
favor of the ideas described in the last paragraph. I have no
doubt that he would be as horrified as anybody else. And that
is the point. One can argue that evolution points to these ideas,
just as much as one can argue that evolution points to other
ideas. But evolution has nothing to do with it. One can believe
in the Bible. One can believe in Darwinian evolution. One can
believe in both. One can believe in neither. One can argue for
abortion. One can argue against abortion. One can believe in
a human soul. And one can believe that there is no such thing
as a soul. Evolution has nothing to do with it. Dawkins, the
scientist, can believe in evolution and argue that the theory
is true and correct. Dawkins, the person can support or reject
abortion and argue for his point of view. Dawkins the parent
can argue for one or another curriculum for school children.
But I reject the right of Dawkins to use the power and prestige
of his science-based stature to teach us morals or education.
He has the same rights as anybody else here, but no more than
that. I say that it is false and disingenuous to claim that evolution
theory forces certain beliefs on us. But I am afraid that influential
people do make that claim.
- Frederick Crews, who expresses the same concerns
as Dawkins and who suggests the same remedies, whose book review
I discussed earlier, is not just some guy who walked in out of
nowhere. He is professor Emeritus of English and former head
of the English Department at the University of California at
Berkeley, member of the American Academy of Arts and Science,
and a respected author and lecturer with access to prestigious
publications. Richard Dawkins is a respected scientist, author
of influential articles and books, and recipient of numerous
awards. These type of people have influence. These type of people
make things happen. These people have an agenda which they have
tied to the "truth" of Darwinian evolution and the
"falsity" of the Bible. This connection, this tie,
does not exist. But they insist that it does. They insist on
teaching evolution as a statement of truth, rather than a theory
in search of truth. This "truth" does not exist. But
they insist that it does. It is a powerful combination, and they
are succeeding.
I believe that both the Bible and science
are true. Hence I have no fear of the scientific theory of evolution.
I am satisfied to accept whatever world, and natural-seeming
laws the Almighty has given us. And if Darwinian evolution, which
I believe to be incorrect, is ultimately shown to be true, then
that is how the world is constructed, and I have no right to
object. What I fear is people who use science as justification
for private agendas, which then do not have to answer on their
own merit. There is a debate on evolution. Let it stay within
the realm of science as exemplified by the exchange between Max
and Spetner. There is a debate on what kind of society we wish
to have, to support or reject abortion, for instance, and many
other matters. We are all entitled to participate, including
Crews and Dawkins. Truth will ultimately triumph in an open and
honest debate. But there are those who would try to get through
stealth that which they can not get directly. It behooves all
of us to be on guard, so that such behavior does not succeed.
|
