14/07/2015

15AnswerstoCreationistNonsenseScientificAmerican

Permanent Address: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

More Science July 2002 Features
This article is from the In-Depth Report Creationism Vs. Evolution

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
ByJohnRennie | Jun17,2002
|

WhenCharlesDarwinintroducedthetheoryofevolutionthrough
naturalselection143yearsago,thescientistsofthedayarguedoveritfiercely,
butthemassingevidencefrompaleontology,genetics,zoology,molecularbiology
andotherfieldsgraduallyestablishedevolution'struthbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Todaythatbattlehasbeenwoneverywhereexceptinthepublicimagination.
Embarrassingly,inthe21stcentury,inthemostscientificallyadvancednationthe
worldhaseverknown,creationistscanstillpersuadepoliticians,judgesandordinary
citizensthatevolutionisaflawed,poorlysupportedfantasy.Theylobbyfor
creationistideassuchas"intelligentdesign"tobetaughtasalternativestoevolution
inscienceclassrooms.Asthisarticlegoestopress,theOhioBoardofEducationis
debatingwhethertomandatesuchachange.Someantievolutionists,suchasPhilip
E.Johnson,alawprofessorattheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeleyandauthorof
DarwinonTrial,admitthattheyintendforintelligentdesigntheorytoserveasa

lAYNEKENNEDYCorbis

ADVERTISEMENT

"wedge"forreopeningscienceclassroomstodiscussionsofGod.
Besiegedteachersandothersmayincreasinglyfindthemselvesonthespottodefendevolutionandrefutecreationism.Thearguments
thatcreationistsusearetypicallyspeciousandbasedonmisunderstandingsof(oroutrightliesabout)evolution,butthenumberand
diversityoftheobjectionscanputevenwellinformedpeopleatadisadvantage.
Tohelpwithansweringthem,thefollowinglistrebutssomeofthemostcommon"scientific"argumentsraisedagainstevolution.Italso
directsreaderstofurthersourcesforinformationandexplainswhycreationsciencehasnoplaceintheclassroom.
1.Evolutionisonlyatheory.Itisnotafactorascientificlaw.
Manypeoplelearnedinelementaryschoolthatatheoryfallsinthemiddleofahierarchyofcertaintyaboveamerehypothesisbut
belowalaw.Scientistsdonotusethetermsthatway,however.AccordingtotheNationalAcademyofSciences(NAS),ascientifictheory
is"awellsubstantiatedexplanationofsomeaspectofthenaturalworldthatcanincorporatefacts,laws,inferences,andtested
hypotheses."Noamountofvalidationchangesatheoryintoalaw,whichisadescriptivegeneralizationaboutnature.Sowhenscientists
talkaboutthetheoryofevolutionortheatomictheoryorthetheoryofrelativity,forthatmattertheyarenotexpressingreservations
aboutitstruth.
Inadditiontothetheoryofevolution,meaningtheideaofdescentwithmodification,onemayalsospeakofthefactofevolution.The
NASdefinesafactas"anobservationthathasbeenrepeatedlyconfirmedandforallpracticalpurposesisacceptedas'true.'"Thefossil
recordandabundantotherevidencetestifythatorganismshaveevolvedthroughtime.Althoughnooneobservedthose
transformations,theindirectevidenceisclear,unambiguousandcompelling.
Allsciencesfrequentlyrelyonindirectevidence.Physicistscannotseesubatomicparticlesdirectly,forinstance,sotheyverifytheir
existencebywatchingfortelltaletracksthattheparticlesleaveincloudchambers.Theabsenceofdirectobservationdoesnotmake
physicists'conclusionslesscertain.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15answerstocreationist/?print=true

1/7

14/07/2015

15AnswerstoCreationistNonsenseScientificAmerican

2.Naturalselectionisbasedoncircularreasoning:thefittestarethosewhosurvive,andthosewhosurviveare
deemedfittest.
"Survivalofthefittest"isaconversationalwaytodescribenaturalselection,butamoretechnicaldescriptionspeaksofdifferentialrates
ofsurvivalandreproduction.Thatis,ratherthanlabelingspeciesasmoreorlessfit,onecandescribehowmanyoffspringtheyare
likelytoleaveundergivencircumstances.Dropafastbreedingpairofsmallbeakedfinchesandaslowerbreedingpairoflargebeaked
finchesontoanislandfulloffoodseeds.Withinafewgenerationsthefastbreedersmaycontrolmoreofthefoodresources.Yetiflarge
beaksmoreeasilycrushseeds,theadvantagemaytiptotheslowbreeders.InapioneeringstudyoffinchesontheGalpagosIslands,
PeterR.GrantofPrincetonUniversityobservedthesekindsofpopulationshiftsinthewild[seehisarticle"NaturalSelectionand
Darwin'sFinches"ScientificAmerican,October1991].
Thekeyisthatadaptivefitnesscanbedefinedwithoutreferencetosurvival:largebeaksarebetteradaptedforcrushingseeds,
irrespectiveofwhetherthattraithassurvivalvalueunderthecircumstances.
3.Evolutionisunscientific,becauseitisnottestableorfalsifiable.Itmakesclaimsabouteventsthatwerenot
observedandcanneverberecreated.
Thisblanketdismissalofevolutionignoresimportantdistinctionsthatdividethefieldintoatleasttwobroadareas:microevolutionand
macroevolution.Microevolutionlooksatchangeswithinspeciesovertimechangesthatmaybepreludestospeciation,theoriginof
newspecies.Macroevolutionstudieshowtaxonomicgroupsabovethelevelofspecieschange.Itsevidencedrawsfrequentlyfromthe
fossilrecordandDNAcomparisonstoreconstructhowvariousorganismsmayberelated.
Thesedaysevenmostcreationistsacknowledgethatmicroevolutionhasbeenupheldbytestsinthelaboratory(asinstudiesofcells,
plantsandfruitflies)andinthefield(asinGrant'sstudiesofevolvingbeakshapesamongGalpagosfinches).Naturalselectionand
othermechanismssuchaschromosomalchanges,symbiosisandhybridizationcandriveprofoundchangesinpopulationsovertime.
ThehistoricalnatureofmacroevolutionarystudyinvolvesinferencefromfossilsandDNAratherthandirectobservation.Yetinthe
historicalsciences(whichincludeastronomy,geologyandarchaeology,aswellasevolutionarybiology),hypothesescanstillbetestedby
checkingwhethertheyaccordwithphysicalevidenceandwhethertheyleadtoverifiablepredictionsaboutfuturediscoveries.For
instance,evolutionimpliesthatbetweentheearliestknownancestorsofhumans(roughlyfivemillionyearsold)andtheappearanceof
anatomicallymodernhumans(about100,000yearsago),oneshouldfindasuccessionofhominidcreatureswithfeaturesprogressively
lessapelikeandmoremodern,whichisindeedwhatthefossilrecordshows.Butoneshouldnotanddoesnotfindmodernhuman
fossilsembeddedinstratafromtheJurassicperiod(144millionyearsago).Evolutionarybiologyroutinelymakespredictionsfarmore
refinedandprecisethanthis,andresearcherstestthemconstantly.
Evolutioncouldbedisprovedinotherways,too.Ifwecoulddocumentthespontaneousgenerationofjustonecomplexlifeformfrom
inanimatematter,thenatleastafewcreaturesseeninthefossilrecordmighthaveoriginatedthisway.Ifsuperintelligentaliens
appearedandclaimedcreditforcreatinglifeonearth(orevenparticularspecies),thepurelyevolutionaryexplanationwouldbecastin
doubt.Butnoonehasyetproducedsuchevidence.
ItshouldbenotedthattheideaoffalsifiabilityasthedefiningcharacteristicofscienceoriginatedwithphilosopherKarlPopperinthe
1930s.Morerecentelaborationsonhisthinkinghaveexpandedthenarrowestinterpretationofhisprinciplepreciselybecauseitwould
eliminatetoomanybranchesofclearlyscientificendeavor.
4.Increasingly,scientistsdoubtthetruthofevolution.
Noevidencesuggeststhatevolutionislosingadherents.Pickupanyissueofapeerreviewedbiologicaljournal,andyouwillfind
articlesthatsupportandextendevolutionarystudiesorthatembraceevolutionasafundamentalconcept.
Conversely,seriousscientificpublicationsdisputingevolutionareallbutnonexistent.Inthemid1990sGeorgeW.Gilchristofthe
UniversityofWashingtonsurveyedthousandsofjournalsintheprimaryliterature,seekingarticlesonintelligentdesignorcreation
science.Amongthosehundredsofthousandsofscientificreports,hefoundnone.Inthepasttwoyears,surveysdoneindependentlyby
BarbaraForrestofSoutheasternLouisianaUniversityandLawrenceM.KraussofCaseWesternReserveUniversityhavebeensimilarly
fruitless.
Creationistsretortthataclosedmindedscientificcommunityrejectstheirevidence.YetaccordingtotheeditorsofNature,Scienceand
otherleadingjournals,fewantievolutionmanuscriptsareevensubmitted.Someantievolutionauthorshavepublishedpapersinserious
journals.Thosepapers,however,rarelyattackevolutiondirectlyoradvancecreationistargumentsatbest,theyidentifycertain
evolutionaryproblemsasunsolvedanddifficult(whichnoonedisputes).Inshort,creationistsarenotgivingthescientificworldgood
reasontotakethemseriously.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15answerstocreationist/?print=true

2/7

14/07/2015

15AnswerstoCreationistNonsenseScientificAmerican

5.Thedisagreementsamongevenevolutionarybiologistsshowhowlittlesolidsciencesupportsevolution.
Evolutionarybiologistspassionatelydebatediversetopics:howspeciationhappens,theratesofevolutionarychange,theancestral
relationshipsofbirdsanddinosaurs,whetherNeandertalswereaspeciesapartfrommodernhumans,andmuchmore.Thesedisputes
arelikethosefoundinallotherbranchesofscience.Acceptanceofevolutionasafactualoccurrenceandaguidingprincipleis
nonethelessuniversalinbiology.
Unfortunately,dishonestcreationistshaveshownawillingnesstotakescientists'commentsoutofcontexttoexaggerateanddistortthe
disagreements.AnyoneacquaintedwiththeworksofpaleontologistStephenJayGouldofHarvardUniversityknowsthatinadditionto
coauthoringthepunctuatedequilibriummodel,Gouldwasoneofthemosteloquentdefendersandarticulatorsofevolution.
(Punctuatedequilibriumexplainspatternsinthefossilrecordbysuggestingthatmostevolutionarychangesoccurwithingeologically
briefintervalswhichmaynonethelessamounttohundredsofgenerations.)Yetcreationistsdelightindissectingoutphrasesfrom
Gould'svoluminousprosetomakehimsoundasthoughhehaddoubtedevolution,andtheypresentpunctuatedequilibriumasthough
itallowsnewspeciestomaterializeovernightorbirdstobebornfromreptileeggs.
Whenconfrontedwithaquotationfromascientificauthoritythatseemstoquestionevolution,insistonseeingthestatementincontext.
Almostinvariably,theattackonevolutionwillproveillusory.
6.Ifhumansdescendedfrommonkeys,whyaretherestillmonkeys?
Thissurprisinglycommonargumentreflectsseverallevelsofignoranceaboutevolution.Thefirstmistakeisthatevolutiondoesnot
teachthathumansdescendedfrommonkeysitstatesthatbothhaveacommonancestor.
Thedeepererroristhatthisobjectionistantamounttoasking,"Ifchildrendescendedfromadults,whyaretherestilladults?"New
speciesevolvebysplinteringofffromestablishedones,whenpopulationsoforganismsbecomeisolatedfromthemainbranchoftheir
familyandacquiresufficientdifferencestoremainforeverdistinct.Theparentspeciesmaysurviveindefinitelythereafter,oritmay
becomeextinct.
7.Evolutioncannotexplainhowlifefirstappearedonearth.
Theoriginofliferemainsverymuchamystery,butbiochemistshavelearnedabouthowprimitivenucleicacids,aminoacidsandother
buildingblocksoflifecouldhaveformedandorganizedthemselvesintoselfreplicating,selfsustainingunits,layingthefoundationfor
cellularbiochemistry.Astrochemicalanalyseshintthatquantitiesofthesecompoundsmighthaveoriginatedinspaceandfallentoearth
incomets,ascenariothatmaysolvetheproblemofhowthoseconstituentsaroseundertheconditionsthatprevailedwhenourplanet
wasyoung.
Creationistssometimestrytoinvalidateallofevolutionbypointingtoscience'scurrentinabilitytoexplaintheoriginoflife.Butevenif
lifeonearthturnedouttohaveanonevolutionaryorigin(forinstance,ifaliensintroducedthefirstcellsbillionsofyearsago),evolution
sincethenwouldberobustlyconfirmedbycountlessmicroevolutionaryandmacroevolutionarystudies.
8.Mathematically,itisinconceivablethatanythingascomplexasaprotein,letalonealivingcellorahuman,could
springupbychance.
Chanceplaysapartinevolution(forexample,intherandommutationsthatcangiverisetonewtraits),butevolutiondoesnotdepend
onchancetocreateorganisms,proteinsorotherentities.Quitetheopposite:naturalselection,theprincipalknownmechanismof
evolution,harnessesnonrandomchangebypreserving"desirable"(adaptive)featuresandeliminating"undesirable"(nonadaptive)
ones.Aslongastheforcesofselectionstayconstant,naturalselectioncanpushevolutioninonedirectionandproducesophisticated
structuresinsurprisinglyshorttimes.
Asananalogy,considerthe13lettersequence"TOBEORNOTTOBE."Thosehypotheticalmillionmonkeys,eachpeckingoutonephrase
asecond,couldtakeaslongas78,800yearstofinditamongthe2613sequencesofthatlength.Butinthe1980sRichardHardisonof
GlendaleCollegewroteacomputerprogramthatgeneratedphrasesrandomlywhilepreservingthepositionsofindividuallettersthat
happenedtobecorrectlyplaced(ineffect,selectingforphrasesmorelikeHamlet's).Onaverage,theprogramrecreatedthephrasein
just336iterations,lessthan90seconds.Evenmoreamazing,itcouldreconstructShakespeare'sentireplayinjustfourandahalfdays.
SEE ALSO:

Energy&Sustainability:5StepstoFeedtheWorldandSustainthePlanet |Evolution:HitchhikingWormsSurviveSlugGuts
Transport |Health:TheConflictedHistoryofAlcoholinWesternCivilization|Mind&Brain:NailBitingMayArisefrom
Perfectionism|Space:PlutoandCharonComeintoSharperFocus|Technology:Timeline:TheAmazingMultimillionYearHistoryof
ProcessedFood

9.TheSecondLawofThermodynamicssaysthatsystemsmustbecomemoredisorderedovertime.Livingcells
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15answerstocreationist/?print=true

3/7

14/07/2015

15AnswerstoCreationistNonsenseScientificAmerican

thereforecouldnothaveevolvedfrominanimatechemicals,andmulticellularlifecouldnothaveevolvedfrom
protozoa.
ThisargumentderivesfromamisunderstandingoftheSecondLaw.Ifitwerevalid,mineralcrystalsandsnowflakeswouldalsobe
impossible,becausethey,too,arecomplexstructuresthatformspontaneouslyfromdisorderedparts.
TheSecondLawactuallystatesthatthetotalentropyofaclosedsystem(onethatnoenergyormatterleavesorenters)cannotdecrease.
Entropyisaphysicalconceptoftencasuallydescribedasdisorder,butitdifferssignificantlyfromtheconversationaluseoftheword.
Moreimportant,however,theSecondLawpermitspartsofasystemtodecreaseinentropyaslongasotherpartsexperiencean
offsettingincrease.Thus,ourplanetasawholecangrowmorecomplexbecausethesunpoursheatandlightontoit,andthegreater
entropyassociatedwiththesun'snuclearfusionmorethanrebalancesthescales.Simpleorganismscanfueltheirrisetoward
complexitybyconsumingotherformsoflifeandnonlivingmaterials.
10.Mutationsareessentialtoevolutiontheory,butmutationscanonlyeliminatetraits.Theycannotproducenew
features.
Onthecontrary,biologyhascataloguedmanytraitsproducedbypointmutations(changesatprecisepositionsinanorganism'sDNA)
bacterialresistancetoantibiotics,forexample.
Mutationsthatariseinthehomeobox(Hox)familyofdevelopmentregulatinggenesinanimalscanalsohavecomplexeffects.Hox
genesdirectwherelegs,wings,antennaeandbodysegmentsshouldgrow.Infruitflies,forinstance,themutationcalledAntennapedia
causeslegstosproutwhereantennaeshouldgrow.Theseabnormallimbsarenotfunctional,buttheirexistencedemonstratesthat
geneticmistakescanproducecomplexstructures,whichnaturalselectioncanthentestforpossibleuses.
Moreover,molecularbiologyhasdiscoveredmechanismsforgeneticchangethatgobeyondpointmutations,andtheseexpandtheways
inwhichnewtraitscanappear.Functionalmoduleswithingenescanbesplicedtogetherinnovelways.Wholegenescanbeaccidentally
duplicatedinanorganism'sDNA,andtheduplicatesarefreetomutateintogenesfornew,complexfeatures.ComparisonsoftheDNA
fromawidevarietyoforganismsindicatethatthisishowtheglobinfamilyofbloodproteinsevolvedovermillionsofyears.
11.Naturalselectionmightexplainmicroevolution,butitcannotexplaintheoriginofnewspeciesandhigherorders
oflife.
Evolutionarybiologistshavewrittenextensivelyabouthownaturalselectioncouldproducenewspecies.Forinstance,inthemodel
calledallopatry,developedbyErnstMayrofHarvardUniversity,ifapopulationoforganismswereisolatedfromtherestofitsspecies
bygeographicalboundaries,itmightbesubjectedtodifferentselectivepressures.Changeswouldaccumulateintheisolatedpopulation.
Ifthosechangesbecamesosignificantthatthesplintergroupcouldnotorroutinelywouldnotbreedwiththeoriginalstock,thenthe
splintergroupwouldbereproductivelyisolatedandonitswaytowardbecominganewspecies.
Naturalselectionisthebeststudiedoftheevolutionarymechanisms,butbiologistsareopentootherpossibilitiesaswell.Biologistsare
constantlyassessingthepotentialofunusualgeneticmechanismsforcausingspeciationorforproducingcomplexfeaturesin
organisms.LynnMargulisoftheUniversityofMassachusettsatAmherstandothershavepersuasivelyarguedthatsomecellular
organelles,suchastheenergygeneratingmitochondria,evolvedthroughthesymbioticmergerofancientorganisms.Thus,science
welcomesthepossibilityofevolutionresultingfromforcesbeyondnaturalselection.Yetthoseforcesmustbenaturaltheycannotbe
attributedtotheactionsofmysteriouscreativeintelligenceswhoseexistence,inscientificterms,isunproved.
12.Nobodyhaseverseenanewspeciesevolve.
Speciationisprobablyfairlyrareandinmanycasesmighttakecenturies.Furthermore,recognizinganewspeciesduringaformative
stagecanbedifficult,becausebiologistssometimesdisagreeabouthowbesttodefineaspecies.Themostwidelyuseddefinition,Mayr's
BiologicalSpeciesConcept,recognizesaspeciesasadistinctcommunityofreproductivelyisolatedpopulationssetsoforganismsthat
normallydonotorcannotbreedoutsidetheircommunity.Inpractice,thisstandardcanbedifficulttoapplytoorganismsisolatedby
distanceorterrainortoplants(and,ofcourse,fossilsdonotbreed).Biologiststhereforeusuallyuseorganisms'physicalandbehavioral
traitsascluestotheirspeciesmembership.
Nevertheless,thescientificliteraturedoescontainreportsofapparentspeciationeventsinplants,insectsandworms.Inmostofthese
experiments,researcherssubjectedorganismstovarioustypesofselectionforanatomicaldifferences,matingbehaviors,habitat
preferencesandothertraitsandfoundthattheyhadcreatedpopulationsoforganismsthatdidnotbreedwithoutsiders.Forexample,
WilliamR.RiceoftheUniversityofNewMexicoandGeorgeW.SaltoftheUniversityofCaliforniaatDavisdemonstratedthatifthey
sortedagroupoffruitfliesbytheirpreferenceforcertainenvironmentsandbredthosefliesseparatelyover35generations,the
resultingflieswouldrefusetobreedwiththosefromaverydifferentenvironment.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15answerstocreationist/?print=true

4/7

14/07/2015

15AnswerstoCreationistNonsenseScientificAmerican

13.Evolutionistscannotpointtoanytransitionalfossilscreaturesthatarehalfreptileandhalfbird,forinstance.
Actually,paleontologistsknowofmanydetailedexamplesoffossilsintermediateinformbetweenvarioustaxonomicgroups.Oneofthe
mostfamousfossilsofalltimeisArchaeopteryx,whichcombinesfeathersandskeletalstructurespeculiartobirdswithfeaturesof
dinosaurs.Aflock'sworthofotherfeatheredfossilspecies,somemoreavianandsomeless,hasalsobeenfound.Asequenceoffossils
spanstheevolutionofmodernhorsesfromthetinyEohippus.Whaleshadfourleggedancestorsthatwalkedonland,andcreatures
knownasAmbulocetusandRodhocetushelpedtomakethattransition[see"TheMammalsThatConqueredtheSeas,"byKateWong
ScientificAmerican,May].Fossilseashellstracetheevolutionofvariousmollusksthroughmillionsofyears.Perhaps20ormore
hominids(notallofthemourancestors)fillthegapbetweenLucytheaustralopithecineandmodernhumans.
Creationists,though,dismissthesefossilstudies.TheyarguethatArchaeopteryxisnotamissinglinkbetweenreptilesandbirdsitis
justanextinctbirdwithreptilianfeatures.Theywantevolutioniststoproduceaweird,chimericmonsterthatcannotbeclassifiedas
belongingtoanyknowngroup.Evenifacreationistdoesacceptafossilastransitionalbetweentwospecies,heorshemaytheninsiston
seeingotherfossilsintermediatebetweenitandthefirsttwo.Thesefrustratingrequestscanproceedadinfinitumandplacean
unreasonableburdenonthealwaysincompletefossilrecord.
Nevertheless,evolutionistscancitefurthersupportiveevidencefrommolecularbiology.Allorganismssharemostofthesamegenes,
butasevolutionpredicts,thestructuresofthesegenesandtheirproductsdivergeamongspecies,inkeepingwiththeirevolutionary
relationships.Geneticistsspeakofthe"molecularclock"thatrecordsthepassageoftime.Thesemoleculardataalsoshowhowvarious
organismsaretransitionalwithinevolution.
14.Livingthingshavefantasticallyintricatefeaturesattheanatomical,cellularandmolecularlevelsthatcouldnot
functioniftheywereanylesscomplexorsophisticated.Theonlyprudentconclusionisthattheyaretheproductsof
intelligentdesign,notevolution.
This"argumentfromdesign"isthebackboneofmostrecentattacksonevolution,butitisalsooneoftheoldest.In1802theologian
WilliamPaleywrotethatifonefindsapocketwatchinafield,themostreasonableconclusionisthatsomeonedroppedit,notthat
naturalforcescreateditthere.Byanalogy,Paleyargued,thecomplexstructuresoflivingthingsmustbethehandiworkofdirect,divine
invention.DarwinwroteOntheOriginofSpeciesasananswertoPaley:heexplainedhownaturalforcesofselection,actingon
inheritedfeatures,couldgraduallyshapetheevolutionofornateorganicstructures.
GenerationsofcreationistshavetriedtocounterDarwinbycitingtheexampleoftheeyeasastructurethatcouldnothaveevolved.The
eye'sabilitytoprovidevisiondependsontheperfectarrangementofitsparts,thesecriticssay.Naturalselectioncouldthusneverfavor
thetransitionalformsneededduringtheeye'sevolutionwhatgoodishalfaneye?Anticipatingthiscriticism,Darwinsuggestedthat
even"incomplete"eyesmightconferbenefits(suchashelpingcreaturesorienttowardlight)andtherebysurviveforfurther
evolutionaryrefinement.BiologyhasvindicatedDarwin:researchershaveidentifiedprimitiveeyesandlightsensingorgansthroughout
theanimalkingdomandhaveeventrackedtheevolutionaryhistoryofeyesthroughcomparativegenetics.(Itnowappearsthatin
variousfamiliesoforganisms,eyeshaveevolvedindependently.)
Today'sintelligentdesignadvocatesaremoresophisticatedthantheirpredecessors,buttheirargumentsandgoalsarenot
fundamentallydifferent.Theycriticizeevolutionbytryingtodemonstratethatitcouldnotaccountforlifeasweknowitandtheninsist
thattheonlytenablealternativeisthatlifewasdesignedbyanunidentifiedintelligence.
15.Recentdiscoveriesprovethatevenatthemicroscopiclevel,lifehasaqualityofcomplexitythatcouldnothave
comeaboutthroughevolution.
"Irreduciblecomplexity"isthebattlecryofMichaelJ.BeheofLehighUniversity,authorofDarwin'sBlackBox:TheBiochemical
ChallengetoEvolution.Asahouseholdexampleofirreduciblecomplexity,Behechoosesthemousetrapamachinethatcouldnot
functionifanyofitspiecesweremissingandwhosepieceshavenovalueexceptaspartsofthewhole.Whatistrueofthemousetrap,he
says,iseventruerofthebacterialflagellum,awhiplikecellularorganelleusedforpropulsionthatoperateslikeanoutboardmotor.The
proteinsthatmakeupaflagellumareuncannilyarrangedintomotorcomponents,auniversaljointandotherstructureslikethosethat
ahumanengineermightspecify.Thepossibilitythatthisintricatearraycouldhavearisenthroughevolutionarymodificationisvirtually
nil,Beheargues,andthatbespeaksintelligentdesign.Hemakessimilarpointsabouttheblood'sclottingmechanismandother
molecularsystems.
Yetevolutionarybiologistshaveanswerstotheseobjections.First,thereexistflagellaewithformssimplerthantheonethatBehecites,
soitisnotnecessaryforallthosecomponentstobepresentforaflagellumtowork.Thesophisticatedcomponentsofthisflagellumall
haveprecedentselsewhereinnature,asdescribedbyKennethR.MillerofBrownUniversityandothers.Infact,theentireflagellum
assemblyisextremelysimilartoanorganellethatYersiniapestis,thebubonicplaguebacterium,usestoinjecttoxinsintocells.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15answerstocreationist/?print=true

5/7

14/07/2015

15AnswerstoCreationistNonsenseScientificAmerican

Thekeyisthattheflagellum'scomponentstructures,whichBehesuggestshavenovalueapartfromtheirroleinpropulsion,canserve
multiplefunctionsthatwouldhavehelpedfavortheirevolution.Thefinalevolutionoftheflagellummightthenhaveinvolvedonlythe
novelrecombinationofsophisticatedpartsthatinitiallyevolvedforotherpurposes.Similarly,thebloodclottingsystemseemsto
involvethemodificationandelaborationofproteinsthatwereoriginallyusedindigestion,accordingtostudiesbyRussellF.Doolittleof
theUniversityofCaliforniaatSanDiego.SosomeofthecomplexitythatBehecallsproofofintelligentdesignisnotirreducibleatall.
Complexityofadifferentkind"specifiedcomplexity"isthecornerstoneoftheintelligentdesignargumentsofWilliamA.Dembskiof
BaylorUniversityinhisbooksTheDesignInferenceandNoFreeLunch.Essentiallyhisargumentisthatlivingthingsarecomplexina
waythatundirected,randomprocessescouldneverproduce.Theonlylogicalconclusion,Dembskiasserts,inanechoofPaley200
yearsago,isthatsomesuperhumanintelligencecreatedandshapedlife.
Dembski'sargumentcontainsseveralholes.Itiswrongtoinsinuatethatthefieldofexplanationsconsistsonlyofrandomprocessesor
designingintelligences.ResearchersintononlinearsystemsandcellularautomataattheSantaFeInstituteandelsewherehave
demonstratedthatsimple,undirectedprocessescanyieldextraordinarilycomplexpatterns.Someofthecomplexityseeninorganisms
maythereforeemergethroughnaturalphenomenathatweasyetbarelyunderstand.Butthatisfardifferentfromsayingthatthe
complexitycouldnothavearisennaturally.
"Creationscience"isacontradictioninterms.Acentraltenetofmodernscienceismethodologicalnaturalismitseeksto
explaintheuniversepurelyintermsofobservedortestablenaturalmechanisms.Thus,physicsdescribestheatomicnucleuswith
specificconceptsgoverningmatterandenergy,anditteststhosedescriptionsexperimentally.Physicistsintroducenewparticles,such
asquarks,tofleshouttheirtheoriesonlywhendatashowthatthepreviousdescriptionscannotadequatelyexplainobserved
phenomena.Thenewparticlesdonothavearbitraryproperties,moreovertheirdefinitionsaretightlyconstrained,becausethenew
particlesmustfitwithintheexistingframeworkofphysics.
Incontrast,intelligentdesigntheoristsinvokeshadowyentitiesthatconvenientlyhavewhateverunconstrainedabilitiesareneededto
solvethemysteryathand.Ratherthanexpandingscientificinquiry,suchanswersshutitdown.(Howdoesonedisprovetheexistenceof
omnipotentintelligences?)
Intelligentdesignoffersfewanswers.Forinstance,whenandhowdidadesigningintelligenceinterveneinlife'shistory?Bycreatingthe
firstDNA?Thefirstcell?Thefirsthuman?Waseveryspeciesdesigned,orjustafewearlyones?Proponentsofintelligentdesigntheory
frequentlydeclinetobepinneddownonthesepoints.Theydonotevenmakerealattemptstoreconciletheirdisparateideasabout
intelligentdesign.Insteadtheypursueargumentbyexclusionthatis,theybelittleevolutionaryexplanationsasfarfetchedor
incompleteandthenimplythatonlydesignbasedalternativesremain.
Logically,thisismisleading:evenifonenaturalisticexplanationisflawed,itdoesnotmeanthatallare.Moreover,itdoesnotmakeone
intelligentdesigntheorymorereasonablethananother.Listenersareessentiallylefttofillintheblanksforthemselves,andsomewill
undoubtedlydosobysubstitutingtheirreligiousbeliefsforscientificideas.
Timeandagain,sciencehasshownthatmethodologicalnaturalismcanpushbackignorance,findingincreasinglydetailedand
informativeanswerstomysteriesthatonceseemedimpenetrable:thenatureoflight,thecausesofdisease,howthebrainworks.
Evolutionisdoingthesamewiththeriddleofhowthelivingworldtookshape.Creationism,byanyname,addsnothingofintellectual
valuetotheeffort.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15answerstocreationist/?print=true

6/7