The lecture on Wednesday evening was given by Edmund Nash, a PhD student at the Molecular Evolution laboratory at the Department of Biochemistry in Cambridge University. Edmund is a recently married Catholic and a very active pro-lifer. The first part of his lecture was a critical evaluation of Intelligent Design theory. For those not familiar with this debate, I should make it clear that he was referring particularly to the work of Michael Behe; Edmund, along with all of us, believes that the universe was intelligently designed.He took issue with the idea that certain organelles (for example the bacterial flagellum) are examples of "irreducible complexity" - that is to say that they cannot be produced by gradual evolution because the precursor would be non-functional. He outlined how in fact the individual parts of the flagellum do in fact have other functions. He also examined the old saw "evolution is a theory, not a fact."
The second part of the lecture took us through an overview of the study of evolution as it is carried on today, especially in his own field which involves the analysis of genetic sequence data. He particularly focussed on genetic polymorphisms - small changes in genes between individuals of same species which can have major implications for the organism. Although the lecture was a model of lucidity and good presentation, it was quite challenging and perhaps beyond those who had not studied the natural sciences at advanced level.
Overall, it reinforced the essential importance of genuine scientific research for the Christian. The modern study of the natural sciences grew naturally from a Christian world view and the foundation of the universities in the Christian middle ages. My own worry is that our post-Christian society will move away from the study of science as an objective discipline as our culture loses sight of the fundamental importance of rationality in its view of the world.
For further reading, Edmund recommended Ken Miller's Evolution page
11 comments:
There are several good introductory books on Intelligent Design, simpler than Dembski's Intelligent Design, The Design Revolution, Mere Creation and Behe's Darwin's Black Box.
I've read them and they are fairly complex.
I would recommend The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.
As an engineer, I find Intelligent Design very persuasive as I can tell you that intelligent designs don't just pop out of no where. They must be thought out.
Why do you say that the assertion that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" is an "old saw"? Some of the scientific techniques (e.g. carbon dating) and interpretation of fossil records (e.g. relationship between brain size and art creation) which have been used to "prove" evolution are now questioned even by pro-evolution scientists. So how can we know that evolution is a fact and not just a fallible theory?
Anthony - there is an article dealing with this question on the Talk Origins site, dating from 1993. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. The short answer is that, like gravity, evolution is a fact. And like gravity, theories that explain it take account of the evidence that comes from experiments and observation. All scientific theories must be "fallible" in the sense that they are open to modification if there is new evidence.
Andrew - Intelligent Design theory makes claims about particular organelles that can be, and in some cases have been disproved by experiment and observation.
To posit that particular organs or organelles have developed over time to adapt to their environment does not detract from the proposition that as a whole, the universe is intelligently designed.
Fr. Tim, I thought your comment was very intriguing—“My own worry is that our post-Christian society will move away from the study of science as an objective discipline as our culture loses sight of the fundamental importance of rationality in its view of the world.” Could you please expand on this remark slightly? I got a bit lost. Are you referring to the influence of subjectivism and moral relativism, and the misuse of science in their support? Or have I misunderstood?
I think that if we move away from rationality, we will begin to doubt the objectivity of science and the usefulness of doing experiments. Science will be seen as one possible way of describing the world with others equally valid.
Anthony, it is a common misconception that the theory of evolution relies on things being dated to particular eras. Evolution is a process, not an event, so whilst carbon dating and similar techniques can sometimes be useful, they cannot ultimately confirm that evolution occurs. Concerning the fossil record, it is still important to study it, but most evolutionary biologists are now most interested in using DNA sequence to compare evolutionary relationships between groups of organisms. It is now possible to sequence DNA from organisms that became extinct well before the start of human history. The Neanderthal genome project is well underway and current progress can be viewed at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5802/1113
It is interesting, Andrew, that you say you find intelligent design convincing as an engineer. The Intelligent Design movement contains a disproportionately large number of engineers and relatively few biologists. But no evolutionary biologist would argue that complex phenomena just 'pop out of no where' - that is exactly the assumption that ID proponents want us to make! For all of the examples of 'irreducible complexity' that have been claimed, it has been shown that either the object given is not irreducible (system can work with some components missing) and/or it is not uniquely complex (components have functions elsewhere). I recommend watching some of Ken Miller's talks on this point. They are accessible via the link at the bottom of the blog post.
I just wanted to make 2 quick points:
(1) I don't know what Mr. Nash covered in his paper, but Dr. Behe has responded to the objection that the parts have functions--it's along the line that these functions have nothing to do with the new function that comes into being, and consequently natural selection cannot be applied. He uses the objector's counter-models of the "primtive" moustraps to explain how this is the case. His response should be located on his website, if not, it's in the revised edition of his book.
2. I would not say evolution is fact, or gravity for that matter.
Rather, I would argue:
This is what is fact (what can be observed):
1. Things fall. or, more generally, certain bodies move towards others.
2. There is a diversity of living things. (Perhaps different species, but then we run up against the Problem of Species--What is a species? Are there distinct types?--which has not been resolved within biology.
Gravity, as some sort of "force," is the cause that has been posited to explain certain kinds of local motion, and evolution is the cause that has been posited to explain the diversity of life (and by extension, the origins of life as well).
While it certainly is the case that observable phenomena have causes, it has not been shown that the causes, as defined, are the actual causes. (Force is a rather problematic concept, even if it looks rather plausible mathematically.)
To deny that all matter is linked across time and space (and thus to deny, among other things, some form of evolution) is similar to suggesting that the world might possibly have been created 10 minutes ago with all our memories intact, or that there's nothing beyond the solar system, light from the Stars having been put close to our planet directly by God.
All such denials put massive pressure upon the dynamic of human reason, the nature of which is to grasp objective connections within the material cosmos across space and time. The whole networked cosmos is more wonderful and more demanding of creative and sustaining intelligence than one which (irrationally) demands a tinkering God.
For another brief version of this argument see our editorial reply to the main letter in FAITH September 06:
http://www.faith.org.uk/Publications/Magazines/Sep06/Sep06LettersToTheEditor.html
In reply to papabear:
(1) Behe has indeed modified his argument in recent years: it seems he no longer believes that irreducibly complex entities are 'necessarily composed of several parts'. Instead, he has tried to argue that although such entities can indeed be reduced to functional precursors, it is unclear how natural selection could generate a new functional entity. But evolutionary biologists have never claimed that natural selection individually forms every complex entity in isolation. Natural selection is exerted on whole organisms, not individual components, so Behe's argument is irrelevant. Moreover, the essay that you mention (and others) does not deal with many serious criticisms by other scientists including Robert Pennock and Lawrence Krauss.
Creationists who champion Behe's views should be aware that he has long accepted an old earth and an ancient universe, and the common descent of all species (including humans). Many of them feel he has conceded too much to the "Darwinists" already.
(2) part 2:
Historically, the observation that there is a diversity of living things (and attempts to classify these things into groups) was, of course, the first important step in an understanding of evolution. But it would be an understatement to say that there is now a lot more to it that. This site has a useful diagram depicting the chronology of discoveries and observations relevant to evolution.
In particular, the study of genetic similarities over the last 15 years or so has confirmed many predictions made from other lines of observation. The question of what defines a species is not straightforward because many of the classic criteria used in the past do not apply to many micro-organisms or those with unusual lifestyles. However, natural selection acts on populations, not on species per se, so a catchall definition of what constitutes a species is not central to an understanding of evolutionary biology.
Fr Tim, I think this one could run and run, so I'm happy for you to pass on my email address in response to any genuine enquiries if you don't want too many more comments on this post.
Unfortunately none of the responses answer the primary theological problem (although the FAITH Symposium is, I understand, supposed to try).
Most modern evolutionary scientists claim that there were numerous original human pairs (Polygenism) not just one i.e. Adam and Eve (Monogenism).
However, every Father of the Church, Doctor of the Church, theologian of the Church, and every bishop in communion with the Pope has uniformly and consistently taught Monogenism, certainly until comparatively recently.
This means that what the Catholic Church calls the Infallible Ordinary Magisterium has taught Monogenism and no Catholic willing to remain orthodox is at liberty to deny the teaching.
That is what "infallibility" means.
Catholic scientists are not at liberty to say, "that is what science teaches and so we must adapt Catholic teaching to fit".
That is to invert the right order of truth. Science proceeds by hypothesis and hypothesis is not of the same order as metaphysical truth, still less dogma.
Here is what Humani Generis teaches on the subject:
"37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own."
The encyclical letter of Leo XIII, Arcanum, also teaches that there was but one Adam and one Eve.
There is no getting around it. Original Sin passes by natural generation from Adam and Eve to all men and not from multiple “Adams” and “Eves”.
It is arrogant for scientists to say “I’ve looked under a microscope and seen endosymbiosis and therefore the Catholic Church is just wrong about Adam and Eve and Original Sin”.
But that is what some are saying.
Too much of modern evolutionary hypothesising begins by making the assumption that macro-evolution is “obviously” true and then fitting all other discoveries to that supposedly “obvious” truth. Whilst the discoveries are of great significance and greatly advance science, to take them as proof of what has already been assumed true is a classic example of circular reasoning.
However great a discovery endosymbiosis may have been one cannot logically deduce from the observation of cyanobacteria developing into mitochondria or chloroplasts that irreducibly complex organisms evolved by macro-evolution, still less that man arose from pre-human hominids.
Again the assumption is that the development was necessarily macro-evolution and not micro-evolution.
It is a fascinating theory or hypothesis but not a dogmatic fact. And one certainly cannot deduce from it that there were numerous Adams and Eves.
Similarly, one cannot simply say that evolution (i.e. macro-evolution) is a “fact” like gravity.
That there is diversity and change in the natural world is an observable fact but how it came about can only be an hypothesis.
Similarly, gravity is an observable fact but theories of gravitation and how gravity works are not “fact” they are hypothesis.
One can observe the fall of an apple but one cannot observe the manner in which gravity has kept the planets together since the Big Bang or some later period when the planetary system came into being.
One can observe mitochondria and chloroplasts developing from cyanobacteria but one cannot now observe numerous Adams and Eves generating families at the dawn of human kind.
Still less can either of these hypotheses demolish the dogma of the Catholic Faith regarding Monogenism and Original Sin.
Simplistically put, one cannot observe a metaphysical truth or a dogma under a microscope.
Evolutionary theorists should stop giving the impression that one can.
James B.
A belated response to Jamie: the difficulty posed by many lines of research to the assertion of 'one Adam, one Eve, once' is that such a scenario constitutes an impossible genetic bottleneck in the human population. This situation is not confined to the first humans and would be the case if the human race shrank to a single couple at any point in history. To take one such line of research, the genetic diversity in human populations today and the number of genetic traits shared with other organisms allows the minimum human population size at any one time to be estimated. Obviously, such a figure cannot be determined exactly, but a figure in the order of thousands is likely, and a population size of two or even twenty cannot be rationalised with any of the data so far uncovered. The genetic material of a single couple simply isn't capable of passing on all the observed traits to future generations.
It is of course easy to say of that our understanding is limited and more work needs to be done before some data might be found that could produce the 'right answer' of just one founding couple. But this isn't going to happen because we can't un-discover what is already known, however limited that knowledge may be. For example, if we find fifty genetic traits shared between humans and chimpanzees by examining five hundred of each species, examining another five hundred in search of more traits will not un-find the original fifty.
For such reasons, those who do research into human evolution are not able to think exclusively in terms of one Adam and one Eve. To do so would essentially render the entire field of research a fruitless exercise, as one would labour in vain attempting to find data supporting a single original couple, discarding the actual findings that demonstrate otherwise, and not permitting oneself to consider any scenarios which involve anything other than a single couple.
The Church does not ask that the faithful do not carry out such research, that they should keep its results a secret, or that they should falsify their results or misrepresent them to others. You cannot just dismiss doing such research and presenting its results as "denying the teachings of the Church"; denial is not the motivation here. Because although it is the anti-theists such as Dawkins who leave their mark on the public consciousness, the vast majority of human evolutionary biologists neither know nor care of the Church's teaching on Adam, Eve and Original Sin; in fact, many believe that the Catholic Church accepts evolution and would never take issue with their work. They publish their results because that is what they observe and not as some sort of point-scoring exercise against the Church or anyone else.
It is therefore not correct to imply that such research is the result of some opposing ideology, or that its dissemination in a pastorally responsible manner such as at the FAITH Symposium constitutes a denial or refusal of Church teaching.
Post a Comment