|
|
|
|
The following article was originally published in the May 1997 issue of the Creation Science Fellowship, Inc. newsletter. Please send responses to CSF at csf@trfn.clpgh.org. Printed by permission. |
|
The aim of Creation Science Fellowship is to inform and educate people of the biblical, philosophical, and scientific validity of creationism. Creation Science Fellowship, Inc. Phone: (412) 341-4908 Website: http://trfn.clpgh.org/csf/ The newsletter is published monthly. |
Our April CSF meeting dealt with one small part of Dr. Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. I firmly believe Dr. Behe has uncovered a method of using the design argument in an extremely powerful way. Due to the length of this article, it will be a two-part series to be continued in the June Newsletter.
Let me first address and issue a polite challenge to those of you who are skeptics of Dr. Behe's arguments. Often times, Evolutionary Naturalists spend so much effort scoffing at how simple minded the Biblical Naturalism paradigm is that they have not allowed themselves to seriously consider the scientific evidence.
Peter Van Inwagen, Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame University issued quite a challenge to anyone who believes Darwin's hypothesis is a valid theory of nature. Professor Van Inwagen wrote the following about Dr. Behe's book, "If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it, misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favor of the widespread suspicion that Darwinism today functions more as an ideology than as a scientific theory. If they can successfully answer Behe's arguments, that will be important evidence in favor of Darwinism."
I will join with Professor Van Inwagen and extend the challenge. If anyone of our readers can defend neo-Darwinism's usefulness as a valid description of nature, specifically rebutting any of Dr. Behe's observations, I will print your rebuttal in our CSF Newsletter. It should not be a diatribe of caustic remarks about the lower mental abilities of creationists. If you can seriously rebut Dr. Behe, give it your best shot and your ideas will be treated fairly.
The CSF will reserve the privilege of printing an evaluation of your comments in the CSF Newsletter. As time may be needed to evaluate Dr. Behe's book, this offer will be held open until December 15, 1997. Most readers subscribe to the Biblical Naturalism paradigm, but not all. Here is a chance for a minority opinion. Copies of Darwin's Black Box may be purchased at your local bookstore or for a discounted price at our monthly CSF meetings.
|
"Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, and the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed for the existence of life's complex design. . ." |
I ask you the same question I asked at our April 15th gathering. Close your eyes and picture a mouse trap. Now, how many separate parts does that mouse trap have? (No pencil and paper allowed.)
A useful definition of science is: The process of finding the truth about nature. One honest reason why Evolutionists and Creationists talk past each other is because they subscribe to different sets of paradigms. A paradigm is a set of ideas, concepts or assumptions which provides a framework within which men may interpret their experiences. A layman's definition of the importance of paradigms is: Without thinking too hard, what makes common sense to you. What one considers to be common sense is not questioned. Paradigms usually go unquestioned because, like "common sense," the matter is settled and that's just the way it is. Nobody goes through life questioning their own common sense. Neither do we by nature question our paradigms. Two questions that seem to interest people about nature are: "Where did living things come from?" and "Why are they like they are?"
Until the 18th century, most "Western" scientists were satisfied with the simple explanation found in the Bible, that God created full blown organisms.
By the mid 19th century another explanation was gaining acceptance. In 1859 Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection. Darwin proposed that all organisms, including man, evolved from simpler organisms by a process called natural selection.
Early in the 20th century, Mendel's discovery of the principles of genetics (at the same time as most of Darwin's activity) had been coupled with Walter Sutton's gene theory. Neo-Darwinists discarded Darwin's most obvious errors (most notably, pangenes) and married Mendel's principles to what they knew about genes and Darwin's concept of how natural selection worked. It was then believed that genes had mutated or changed through hundreds of years to culminate in the various species in existence.
By the mid 20th century, Richard Dawkins would speak for most biologists, "Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, and the only workable explanation that has ever been proposed for the existence of life's complex design..." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker).
Not all scientists agree. "Rather than accept the fantastically small probability of life having arisen through the blind forces of nature, it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate, intelligent act. By better, I mean less likely to be wrong" (B. Boyle). So we have identified two competing and exclusive paradigms. Evolutionary Naturalism holds that totally by blind chance, life originated from non-life and that natural selection controlled the direction of the evolution of all organisms from simple toward more advanced. On the other hand, Biblical Naturalism proposes that God, existing outside of nature, created fully grown, living organisms.
But . . . do we have to decide between the two? No, we do not! If we want to be nonrational, therefore unscientific, no decision is needed. The scientific philosopher, Thomas Kuhn observed, "To reject one paradigm without simultaneously substituting another is to reject science itself" (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Kuhn further observed what happens when enough problems are discovered with a paradigm. "The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and each other."
So in this article we are going to examine some evidence. Based on our observations of nature, we need to make rational decisions. Does the evidence point towards Evolutionary Naturalism or does it scream, "Design demands a Designer!"?
In 1996 a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, Dr. Michael Behe wrote a book that really stimulated my thinking. His book, Darwin's Black Box is the basis for much of the discussion in this article. Let us briefly review genetics in order to be able to understand the magnitude of the problems Neo-Darwinian Evolution has.
Where did you come from and why are you like you are? You came into existence when a sperm cell from your dad united with an egg from your mom. You are like you are because of the DNA (genes) that sperm and egg contained. Your first cell (Zygote) soon divided and became two cells and them four, followed by eight. Soon you resembled a hollow ball. A few days later you took on shape and were know as an embryo. A few weeks later you took on distinctly human features and were known as a fetus. A lot of change occurred through the years to your body, all directed by identical copies of the DNA that occupied your zygote cell.
How did you know how to make the two-celled stage? Answer: genes or DNA. How did you know how to grow a left and right arm? Answer: your genes. How did you know how to produce two ears, both right side up and facing the right direction? Answer: genes. Why can't you grow a tail? Answer: you don't know how, you don't have the genes to grow a tail. Why can't you glow in the dark like a firefly?
These questions with their identical answers are probably starting to bother you but I want to make the point as strongly as I can that genes are all Evolutionary Naturalists have to work with. If you had the genes to produce the structures and enzymes to glow in the dark; could you? Of course you could. Why do I have type B blood and you possibly have type A blood? I received my body's genes for its biochemistry from my parents as well.
Question: is there anything I can do to willfully change my DNA? No. Can DNA change? Yes. These changes are called mutations. I low important are mutations to Evolutionary Naturalism? TOTALLY IMPORTANT!
Evolution's only source of new characteristics is mutations. Have scientists ever observed a mutation to have taken place? Yes. Have biologists ever observed a new structure that never existed before or a brand new enzyme spontaneously appear and it was beneficial to the organism in nature? NEVER!
What is there about DNA that gives it the property of containing and transmitting information? The DNA molecule has a double helix shape with nitrogen bases which appear like rungs on a ladder. These nitrogen base pairs appear only in four combinations: A-T, T-A, G-C and C-G. The sequence of these base pairs is what carries the message, in much the same way as the sequence of letters in an alphabet produces words. The way DNA messages are transmitted is through protein synthesis. Messenger RNAs (mRNA) are transcribed as exact mirror images of the DNA sequence. The newly formed mRNA travel out of the nucleus to the cytoplasm where ribosomes, with the aid of transfer RNA, translate the messages into proteins. Proteins are what give any animal its structure. You are made out of hundreds of specific proteins. Proteins also control how your body works. Every chemical reaction that happens in you body, from the ability of your blood to carry oxygen to the impulses of nerves, is controlled by proteins called enzymes. (If each reaction was not "controlled," it would just happen without regulation. If it was uncontrolled, it would spell disaster.) A protein is actually a polymer type of a molecule built of a sequence of amino acids. The following is a protein typical of what you have the ability to produce. |
Figure 2. Ribonuclease. Yellow connections indicate intrachain disulfide linkages.
As you can see, ribonuclease contains 124 amino acids. Its particular structure can make it do things that no other enzyme can do. How does a body know how to make ribonuclease? DNA. How much DNA does it take? More than 372 base pairs of G-C, C-G, A-T or T-A.
The following is one half of the hemoglobin molecule. Hemoglobin transports oxygen around your body and consists of two alpha and two beta chains of amino acids. One molecule has 574 amino acids. That's right, your DNA is the correct answer. You guess the question.
Alpha chain
Val·Leu·Ser·Pro·Ala·Asp·Lys·Thr·Asn·Val·Lys·Ala·Ala·Try·
Gly·Lys·Val·Gly·Ala·His·Ala·Gly·Glu·Tyr·Gly·Ala·Glu·Ala·
Leu·Glu·Arg·Met·Phe·Leu·Ser·Phe·Pro·Thr·Thr·Lys·Thr·Tyr·
Phe·Pro·His·Phe·Asp·Leu·Ser·His·Gly·Ser·Ala·Gln·Val·Lys·
Gly·His·Gly·Lys·Lys·Val·Ala·Asp·Ala·Leu·Thr·Asn·Ala·Val·
Ala·His·Val·Asp·Asp·Met·Pro·Asn·Ala·Leu·Ser·Ala·Leu·Ser·
Asp·Leu·His·Ala·His·Lys·Leu·Arg·Val·Asp·Pro·Val·Asp·Phe·
Lys·Leu·Leu·Ser·His·Cys·Leu·Leu·Val·Thr·Leu·Ala·Ala·His·
Leu·Pro·Ala·Glu·Phe·Thr·Pro·Ala·Val·His·Ala·Ser·Leu·Asp·
Lys·Phe·Leu·Ala·Ser·Val·Ser·Thr·Val·Leu·Thr·Ser·Lys·Tyr·
Arg
Beta chain
Val·His·Leu·Thr·Pro·Glu·Glu·Lys·Ser·Ala·Val·Thr·Ala·Leu·
Try·Gly·Lys·Val·Asn·Val·Asp·Glu·Val·Gly·Gly·Glu·Ala·Leu·
Gly·Arg·Leu·Leu·Val·Val·Tyr·Pro·Try·Thr·Gln·Arg·Phe·Phe·
Glu·Ser·Phe·Gly·Asp·Leu·Ser·Thr·Pro·Asp·Ala·Val·Met·Gly·
Asn·Pro·Lys·Val·Lys·Ala·His·Gly·Lys·Lys·Val·Leu·Gly·Ala·
Phe·Ser·Asp·Gly·Leu·Ala·His·Leu·Asp·Asn·Leu·Lys·Gly·Thr·
Phe·Ala·Thr·Leu·Ser·Glu·Leu·His·Cys·Asp·Lys·Leu·His·Val·
Asp·Pro·Glu·Asn·Phe·Arg·Leu·Leu·Gly·Asn·Val·Leu·Val·Cys·
Val·Leu·Ala·His·His·Phe·Gly·Lys·Gln·Phe·Thr·Pro·Pro·Val·
Gln·Ala·Ala·Tyr·Gln·Lys·Val·Val·Ala·Gly·Val·Ala·Asp·Ala·
Leu·Ala·His·Lys·Tyr·His
Alpha and beta chains of human hemoglobin.
But can everyone make the proper hemoglobin? Do you have to have all of the 574 amino acids just right? If just one glutamic acid is traded in for a valine, the result is a fatal disease, sickle cell anemia. [This glutamic acid residue is in beta chain, position -6.]
If evolution is true, once upon a time there existed no animals with hemoglobin. Let's review. Can any animal do anything to change its genes in such a way that the new DNA appears and then by protein synthesis is translated into a new structure or a new protein? The answer is a resounding, NO!
Evolutionary Naturalism only allows one type of control. The forces of natural selection allow a sorting of the less successful from the more successful. The more successful produce more offspring that survive to, in turn, produce more of their kind than the less successful do. No direct influence of changes in DNA in a certain direction is allowed except for the variable survival rate of the whole organism.
What are the odds of producing hemoglobin by pure chance? The true answer is; no one knows. However, at the minimum the odds are 1/20 to the 574 power. There are twenty different amino acids to choose from so the odds of any three particular amino acids being linked together are: 1/20x1/20x1/20=1/20 cubed which equals 1/8000. So the odds of getting valine then leucine then serine is one chance in 8000. The odds of 1/20 to the 574 power is equal to 1/10 to the 747 power. That's one chance in one followed by 747 zeros!
Remember, evolution's only source of new codes is mutations! Mutations are stimulated to occur by either radiation or chemicals. In order to pass the mutation on, the mutation would have to occur in the animal's reproductive cells. The three things that can happen to the nucleotide bases in DNA are: substitution or addition of one or more bases and substitution of a base. The addition or subtraction of a nucleotide can produce the most dramatic change in the amino acid sequence. This is known as a frame shift. I can easily illustrate this by way of analogy. Let us take only one letter out of a previous sentence and let's see if we still have meaningful information. (The addition os ubtractio no f anucleotid eca nproduc eth emos t . . .) Just as removing one letter, "r", gave us a nonsense sentence, so a frame shift in DNA also produces complete nonsense. To believe anything good, like functional hemoglobin, could come from such a process, in my mind, takes great faith.
Let's return to the question of the design of the mouse trap. Did you get the right answer? If you didn't, you have probably designed a mouse trap that is ineffective in catching mice. There are a minimum of eight parts to a mouse trap. They are: a bar to come down on the mouse, a spring to provide the force needed, a trigger to hold the bait and cause the bar to be released, a wire to go between the trigger and the bar which holds the bar in place when the trap is set, a board to hold everything in place, and three staples to hold each end of the bar and the wire that holds the bar down.
You could not do without any one of part. You could add parts, but they would not be essential. You could paint the trap red, but that would not be essential either. When the mouse trap was first invented, it was not done by adding parts to a system that almost worked. No, the inventor had to dream up the whole machine in his mind. The whole thing was designed and then tried out.
The first trap that worked was irreducibly complex. All of the parts were essential . None could be left out and still have a mousetrap that worked. The same is true of many processes in nature. In our June Newsletter we will be discussing blood clotting. You will discover that blood clotting is extremely complex and yet if even one part is missing, the blood will not clot. The biochemistry of blood clotting is a fine example of irreducible complexity.
Darwinian evolution is totally dependent on one "successful" mutation at a time. Systems that are by nature irreducibly complex cannot develop one step at a time. It is a case of all or none. God created animals that worked, including the intricate system of blood clotting. The design of blood clotting cries out for a designer.
|
|
|
Micheal J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box (New York: The Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1996, 1-800-223-2348, $25.00). Back to Text
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection (Publishers include: Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 617-495-2600; New York: NAL/Dutton, a Div. of Penguin USA, 212-366-2000 or 800-331-4624; New York: New York Univ. Press, 212-998-2575 or 800-996-6987; Westminster, MD: Random House, Inc. & Random House Value Publishing, Inc., Cust. Service: 800-726-0600, Ordering: 800-733-3000). Back to Text
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1-800-223-2584). Back to Text
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Foundations of the Unity of Science Series, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1970, 312-568-1550, hardbound: $25.00, paperback: $10.95). Back to Text
Get your own Free Home Page.
