Darwinism and popular culture: Well, aren't we all 30 per cent banana anyway?

Just getting back to real work, and clearing out my in tray:

Friend Nancy Pearcey writes to note:

A policeman can be fired for calling a black man a "banana-eating jungle monkey."

But a scientist can be fired for not calling Man a "banana-eating jungle monkey."

The former penalizes people for their racism; the latter penalizes people for their lack of evolutionism.

A bit odd, don't you think?

After all, if the evolutionary picture is the whole show, is not Mankind per se a "banana-eating jungle monkey"? Or at least a close cousin?

Racism is evil.

But we learn that from our true Creator. Not from nature.

Not from an impersonal, indifferent cosmos.

Okay, fine, but years ago, a learned rabbi pointed out that we all share 30 percent of our genes with a banana, give or take a few here and there, so ...

I don't know what I would do without learned rabbis.

Hey, if you follow me on Twitter, I'll let you know when I have posted a number of stories to one of my blogs, generally about 5 new ones.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Book Review: Behe's Edge of Evolution: A turning point in the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy?

Look at Darwin. My God, what a powerful theory. Incidentally, I give that one about 40 more years, and it will go down in flames.

(Tom Wolfe, interview with George Neumayr, “Mummy Wrap,” The American Spectator January 10, 2005)

Before dealing with Edge of Evolution, which I see as a turning point in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design, permit me to briefly sketch the cultural landscape in which it has just appeared:

Predicting the end of Darwinism became an electronic cottage industry in the last two decades. Hence I called this blog, which keeps track of the controversy, the Post-Darwinist.

However, two factors have protected Darwin as he approaches his 200th birthday - his friends and his enemies.

Darwin's friends

A high proportion of Darwin's most devoted friends are atheists. I am certainly not the only person to notice that Darwinism is in fact their religion. Indeed, the hagiography around Darwin himself seems to be copied from the adoration offered to Catholic saints. Indeed, zeal for Darwin's house hath eaten them up. (John 2:17) For them, Darwinism is and must be true, and opposition arises only among the wicked of the earth. They have mastered the art of certainty in an uncertain age.

Darwin's enemies

Darwin is likewise fortunate in his enemies. While his friends unite around materialist atheism - a grim creed but a clear and comprehensive one - his enemies are divided by several creeds.

Darwin's theory requires three things:

- an ancient Earth (to allow time for evolution),
- common ancestry of living things from a single primordial cell (to allow opportunity for evolution), and
- enormous creative power arising from survival of the fittest (natural selection acting on random mutations), to provide a force for evolution

But on these three points, Darwin's enemies go separate ways.

An ancient Earth: Some scientists (young earth creationists) believe that evolution did not really occur because the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Darwin is thereby obviated. But their critiques have little impact on other scientists.

Common ancestry: Most scientists who doubt Darwin accept the evidence for an ancient Earth. But some of them doubt common ancestry. Usually, they are particularly troubled by the common ancestry of the human and the chimpanzee.

Because they don't think common ancestry is true anyway, relatively few in this group of anti-Darwinists ask the following critical question: What if common ancestry is right, but Darwinism is wrong? Put another way, if Ronald Reagan and Bonzo are indeed descended from a common ancestor, it does not follow that Darwinism (natural selection acting on random mutations) explains the event correctly.

Opponents of Darwinism as a creative force: Lehigh University biochemist Mike Behe, author of Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, thinks that the great antiquity of the earth and common ancestry are right but Darwinism is wrong. In his new book, he cites powerful evidence that Darwinism cannot do what its proponents hope.

His first book Darwin's Black Box, which set forth his argument for irreducible complexity (structures within the cell that could not be created by Darwinian evolution), was greeted by howls of genuine outrage. Hordes of scientists attempted to test and falsify his thesis, all the while claiming that it could not be tested or falsified, and that it was not science. Like Tom Wolfe, the culture critic quoted above, I began to pay close attention to the controversy around Darwinism, because it clearly signalled profound changes afoot.

Now, with The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, Behe develops his case further. He takes it into the lab.

Next: The Edge of Evolution: What exactly does Behe say about Darwinism?

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?, or my book of essays on faith and science topics, Faith@Science: Why science needs faith in the 21st century (Winnipeg: J. Gordon Shillingford, 2001). You can read excerpts as well.

2. The Edge of Evolution: What exactly does Behe say about Darwinism?

Not surprisingly, the science press greeted The Edge of Evolution with orchestrated hostile reviews.

Because Behe's actual thesis is apt to get lost amid the smoke, noise, and mirrors these reviews have generated, I am going to take a moment to outline it briefly:

In Darwin's Black Box, Behe was concerned to show that some elegant structures in life are beyond the reach of random mutation and natural selection (= Darwinism). In The Edge of Evolution , he seeks to draw up "reasonable, general guidelines" to determine where the edge of evolution is, "to decide with some precision beyond what point Darwinian explanations are unlikely to be adequate, not just for some particular structures but for general features of life." (8)

Darwinian evolution must be evaluated at the molecular level because that is the level at which the exact causes of a given change can be known. Recent technological advances have given us the tools to do that (10).

He studies in detail a number of cases where Darwinian evolution is known to have occurred. That is, the exact mechanisms of the changes that took place in the malaria parasite, E. coli, and HIV have been identified, and the change appears to have been caused by natural selection acting on random mutations. The vast numbers and the swiftness with which these microorganisms reproduce enable a rate of evolution that is equivalent to millions of years of evolutionary time for larger organisms. Thus, an estimate of the limits of Darwinian change is possible.

Characterizing the available evidence, Behe's metaphor for the relationship between the human immune system and the malaria parasite is destructive trench warfare, rather than the productive arms race beloved of Darwinist writers (19). For example, random mutations like sickle hemoglobin that confer protection from malaria always come at a cost: "Some are worse than others, but all are diminishments; none are constructive. Like sickle hemoglobin, they are all acts of desperation to stave off an invader." (38).

For that matter, the intestinal parasite E. coli, subject of the most extensive laboratory evolution study ever, evolved over thirty thousand generations mainly by devolving - throwing away sophisticated machinery, not by building it. (16)

Meanwhile, the malaria parasite, which can develop resistance to laboratory drugs within weeks, has not evolved resistance to the human sickle cell trait in thousands of years. That, Behe suggests, may point us to the limits of evolution by random mutation. (53) (Natural selection can be activated only when a mutation has occurred.)

In general, he suggests, two simultaneous mutations that create an advantage (like resistance to the antimalarial chloroquine) is a vastly higher hurdle for the malaria parasite to achieve via Darwinian evolution (59) than only one, on the order of 10 to the 20th power.

The significance of this figure becomes evident when we consider the fact that there have been so many fewer humans in the world than malaria parasites. If the rate of change is the same as observed in the lab, Behe notes: "No mutation that is of the same complexity as chloroquine resistance in malaria arose by Darwinian evolution in the line leading to humans in the past ten million years." (61) (Note: Behe is NOT claiming that no evolution occurred. He is saying that an evolutionary process cannot, on the evidence, have been a Darwinian one; it must have been nonrandom (83).)

Darwinian evolution depends on processes that break things rather than processes that create them: "... mutations that help in trench warfare by breaking something will appear at a rate hundreds of times faster than ones that help by doing something new." (69) As the example of freeze-tolerant fish shows, it is far more likely to occur among simple proteins than complex, machine-like ones (82). In the face of challenges that can only be addressed by reengineering, Darwinian evolution just stops. For example, the malaria parasite has never evolved a way to infest humans in cooler climates or get around sickled cells. (82)

Noting that in the long war between humans and malaria, neither side seems to have evolved new protein interactions (136-37), he argues that "complexes of just three or more different proteins are beyond the edge of evolution", but that the great majority of proteins in the cell work in complexes of six or more. (135) Similarly, the HIV virus has undergone no significant basic biochemical changes, despite its endless mutations in pursuit of resistance (139), nor has E. Coli (142) done so.

Behe calculates that, based on the available evidence of observed Darwinian mutations, events less likely than ten to the twentieth power are generally beyond the edge of (Darwinian) evolution (145).

There is the main argument in a nutshell, minus the supporting material. Many people, of course, will feel the need to argue for or against the thesis of The Edge of Evolution without bothering to read it. Despite the fact that it is very clearly written - a masterpiece of simple explanation, accessible to anyone who can read National Geographic or Scientific American.

Also worth noting:

- Both in The Edge of Evolution and in his previous book, Darwin's Black Box, Behe makes clear that he has no quarrel with common ancestry (page 12). Indeed, it is crucial to his thesis. In The Edge of Evolution, he also offers a defense of the common ancestry of human and chimpanzee (pp. 70-73).

- Contrary to claims heard recently, Behe discusses his earlier thesis of irreducible complexity at considerable length (86ff and 120ff) in EoE, explaining the challenge that structures such as the cilium/flagellum pose to Darwinian evolution. For example:

Although Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller argued in response that the two-hundred component cilium is not really irreducibly complex, he offered no Darwinian explanation for the step-by-step origin of the cilium. Miller's professional field, however, is the study of the structure and function of biological membranes, and his rejoinder appeared in a trade book, not in the scientific literature. An updated search of the science journals, where experts in the field publish their work, again shows no serious progress on a Darwinian explanation for the ultracomplex cilium. (95)

And what about the reviews? Well, they seem to be doing their best to discourage readers from actually reading the book. Having read it, I think I know why.

Next: The response to Edge of Evolution Dogs, Dover, Darwinists, and Deals

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?, or my book of essays on faith and science topics, Faith@Science: Why science needs faith in the 21st century (Winnipeg: J. Gordon Shillingford, 2001). You can read excerpts as well.

Thinkquote of the day 2: Jonathan Wells on arguments for universal common ancestry

Whatever merits these hypotheses might have, one thing is clear: molecular phylogeny has failed, utterly and completely, to establish that universal common ancestry is true. The molecular evidence, like the fossil and embryo evidence, is plagued with inconsistencies, and Darwinism must be assumed in order to explain it; or, as is often the case, explain it away.

- from Jonathan Wells' The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design , p. 46.

My own reaction to the universal common ancestry claim at this point is similar to what I once heard a Canadian police officer say politely but firmly to a possible suspect. Not "I KNOW da Troof and it be in da BIBLE!! Canadians don't typically talk that way. He merely said, "I'm afraid you are going to have to come up with something better."

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.