Intelligent Design vs' Evolution

1
Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

• I. Intro
• A. Movie Icons of Evolution
• B. Creationism and Intelligent Design
• II. Icons of Evolution
• Haeckels embryos
• Darwins finches
• Homology
• III. Conclusions
• Science vs. science?
• What is science?

2
I.A. Movie Icons of Evolution Things to think
about

• What is said - and what is unsaid
• What might be an alternative explanation?
• Is this statement/argument taken out of context?
• What does the other evidence suggest?

3
I.A. Movie Things to think about

• What is said - and what is unsaid
• What might be an alternative explanation?
• Is this statement/argument taken out of context?
• What does the other evidence suggest?

4
I.B. Creationism and Intelligent Design

• Creationism Book of Genesis and age of the Earth
• ID Organisms (including humans) created by
  supernatural intervention
• Opposed to evolution, especially macroevolution
• Spectrum of beliefs
• Literal interpretation of Genesis Science and
  religion are irreconcilable
• Acceptance of age of earth, but intelligent
  design of organisms
• Mainstream religion no need for conflict between
  religion and scientific discoveries in geology
  and evolutionary biology

Skehan 2000, NSTA
5
Claims of Intelligent Design

• - Erroneous icons of evolution
• - Irreducible complexity
• - Complexity/specification

6
Erroneous Icons of Evolution - Jonathan Wells

• Numerous commonly cited examples of evidence for
  evolution are flawed
• Textbooks present them anyway
• Scientific dogmatism is trying to prop up
  Darwinian evolution in the face of growing
  scientific evidence against it.
• Concedes
• Microevolution may take place, but not
  macroevolution (new species do not emerge)

7
Therefore,

• neo-Darwinian theory (evolution by natural
  selection) has weak support.
• Better science would include possibility of
  intelligent design -
• i.e., that a higher power created species as
  they are.

8
Specific examples

• A. Haeckels embryos
• B. Darwins finches
• C. Homology in vertebrate limbs

9
Irreducible complexity - Michael Behe
For example - complex biochemical pathways -
complex structures (eyes, flagella) - and
mousetraps...
Massimo Pigliucci, http//fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/
lectures.html
10
Irreducible complexity? Massimo Pigliucci
John McDonald, http//udel.edu/mcdonald/mousetra
p.html
Massimo Pigliucci, http//fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/
lectures.html
11
3 parts
2 parts
1 part
12
The point

• Just because we have a hard time conceiving of it
  doesnt mean it couldnt have happened!

13
Irreducibly complex eyes? Mollusks
Limpet Patella
Mollusk Pleurotomaria
Nautilus
Marine snail Murex
Squid Loligo
Fig. 24.18
14
Complexity/specification - William Dembski

• - random phenomena
• - regular phenomena
• - design (intelligent) complexity and
  specification
• complexity - not just chance
• specification - not just random, has information
  and meaning

15
Complexity/specification - William Dembski

• But neglects the possibility of natural
  (unintelligent) design
• Natural selection can also lead to complex,
  specific entities.

16
II. Icons of Evolution

• Haeckels embryos
• Darwins finches
• C. Homology in vertebrate limbs

17
A. Haeckels embryos

• Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
• Haeckel wasnt an embryologist

From Gishlick http//www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon4h
aeckel.html
18
Wells arguments

• Haeckel faked his drawings, but evolutionists
  continue to use them anyway.
• Haeckel mislabeled the first stages of embryonic
  development.
• Darwin depended on Haeckel, therefore Darwin was
  wrong.
• Selective evidence is presented in current
  treatments.

19
In reply (Alan Gishlick)

• Faked drawings Yes, but modern evolutionary
  development in no way depends on Haeckels
  drawings
• Wrong first stages but different definitions of
  embryo in the 1800s (didnt include blastula,
  gastrulation).
• Darwin depended on Haeckel but Haeckel published
  after Darwins first edition (misrepresented
  quotations).
• Selective evidence But evidence is excellent
  that more closely related taxa share more
  developmental characteristics (and that was
  Darwins main point too!). Textbooks just
  present the clearest examples.

http//www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon4haeckel.html
20
B. Darwins finches
Fig. 1.17b
21
Darwins finches

• Wells evidence against using this example
• - Not instrumental in Darwins formulation of
  descent with modification
• - Selection oscillates, not directional
• - Hybridization

22
Darwins finches

• Evidence against
• - Not instrumental in Darwins formulation of
  descent with modification
• - Selection oscillates, not directional no net
  evolution
• - Hybridization

But doesnt account for - long term changes in
climate (likely) - adaptive radiation across
islands (variation in food source)
Fig. 23.13
23
Darwins finches

• Evidence against
• - Not instrumental in Darwins formulation of
  descent with modification
• - Selection oscillates, not directional
• Hybridization most
• species of Darwins finches
• remain distinct primarily
• because of mating behavior.

True - probably fewer biological species (6
rather than 14?) But group is distinct
molecularly - and some species cannot hybridize.
24
Homology
Homology - character states that are shared due
to common ancestry
bird wings vs bat wings
Analogy - character states that have a common
function but not a common ancestry
25
Homologies Wells Criticisms
Homology is evidence of a common ancestor

• Circular logic
• Similar structures not necessarily coded for by
  exactly the same genes
• Berras blunder - Corvettes
• Sloppy logic, sloppy teaching

A homology is a similarity in structure or
biochemistry derived from a common ancestor
Wells, 2000
26
Which is which?
27
Homologies Wells Criticisms

• Circular logic
• Similar structures not necessarily coded for by
  exactly the same genes, and vice versa
• Berras blunder - Corvettes
• Sloppy logic, sloppy teaching

Wells, 2000
28

• Similar structures not necessarily coded for by
  exactly the same genes, and vice versa

- But one gene/one function is only simplest
conception. What are some others? - Evidence for
neutral DNA homologies - Abundant evidence for
coding by similar genes for homologous
structures. - But what about vertebrate
limbs? YES! Same family of genes!
E. Max, 2001
Wells, 2000
http//home.earthlink.net/biochemborg/private/Ico
ns/homolog04.htm
29
Options

• Wells - evolution is wrong
• Max (2001)
• 1. Meaningless
• 2. Functional constraints (convergent evolution)
• 3. Common descent (supported by collateral
  evidence)

http//home.earthlink.net/biochemborg/private/Ico
ns/homolog04.htm
30
Homologies Wells Criticisms

• Circular logic
• Similar structures not necessarily coded for by
  exactly the same genes
• Berras blunder - Corvettes
• Sloppy logic, sloppy teaching

Yep, that was a blunder. But theory of evolution
doesnt at all depend on evidence by
Corvettes! - E. Max 2001
Wells, 2000
31
Homologies Wells Criticisms

• Circular logic
• Similar structures not necessarily coded for by
  exactly the same genes
• Berras blunder - Corvettes
• Sloppy logic, sloppy teaching - see p. 79

How could you tell the difference?
32
More to the point, gene duplication, gene
families

• - groups of genes originating from a common
  ancestral DNA sequence
• - now perform a variety of functions
• Allow for
• - genetic redundancy
• - more freedom for mutation, development of
  complexity.

33
III. Conclusions

• A. Science vs. science?

34
Intelligent design claims to be scientific, but...
- selective quotations/selective citation -
biased interpretation - errors of omission
doesnt consider broad evidence for specific
examples or evolution in general - doesnt offer
testable alternative hypotheses - motives
scientific discourse or ideology?
35
Wells

• - Ph.D. in religious studies, Yale University
• - Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology, UC
  Berkeley
• - Currently a researcher at the Discovery
  Institute
• - Follower of Rev. Sun Myung Moons Unification
  Church

36
Wells

• Father's Moons words, my studies, and my
  prayers convinced me that I should devote my life
  to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my
  fellow Unificationists had already devoted their
  lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me
  (along with about a dozen other seminary
  graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I
  welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for
  battle.

http//www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/
wells/DARWIN.htm
37
Wells

• In the course of my research I learned (to my
  surprise) that biblical chronology played almost
  no role in the 19th- century controversiesbetween
  religion and evolution, since most theologians
  had already accepted geological evidence for the
  age of the earth and re-interpreted the days in
  Genesis as long periods of time. Instead, the
  central issue was design. God created the cosmos
  with a plan in mind. This affirmation is among
  the most basic in all of Christianity (and other
  theistic religions as well, including
  Unificationism). And that plan included human
  beings as the final outcome of the creative
  process we are created in the image of God.

http//www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/
wells/DARWIN.htm
38
B. What is science?

• Testable
• Synthetic - multiple lines of evidence
• Self-correcting is evolution dogmatic?

39
What types of questions can science answer?

• Age of earth
• processes taking place within nature

40
What types of questions can science not answer?

• What is the role of a supernatural power in
  creation?
• Example
• - how to test?
• - end of inquiry?
• - how would we learn more about natural
  processes if we stopped with a supernatural
  explanation whenever there was conflicting
  scientific evidence?