A 30-year old letter to the editor of the Purdue Exponent
| July 5, 2009 | Posted by Granville Sewell under Intelligent Design |
I was a visiting assistant professor (math/CS) at Purdue University in 1978-79, when I responded to a letter in the Purdue student newspaper (the Exponent), which compared those who doubt Darwin to “flat earthers”, as follows:
“Last year I surveyed the literature on evolution in the biology library of Oak Ridge National Laboratory and found Olan Hyndman’s The Origin of Life and the Evolution of Living Things in which he calls the neo-Darwinian theory of random mutation and natural selection `the most irrational and illogical explanation of natural phenomenon extant’ and proposes an alternative theory; Rene Dubos’ The Torch of Life in which he says `[The neo-Darwinian theory's] real strength is that however implausible it may appear to its opponents they do not have a more plausible one to offer in its place’; and Jean Rostand’s A Biologist’s View in which he says that the variations which made up evolution must have been `creative and not random.’ Rostand, who elsewhere has called the neo-Darwinian theory a `fairy tale for adults,’ attributes this creativeness to the genes themselves, and says `quite a number of biologists do, in fact, fall back on these hypothetical variations to explain the major steps of evolution.’…I was not, however, able to find any books which suggested that this creativeness originated outside the chromosomes—these are restricted to theological libraries, because they deal with religion and not science, and their authors are compared to flat earthers in Exponent letters.”
To those who dismiss intelligent design as “not science”, I would like to pose the same question again, 30 years later: why is it science to attribute the major steps of evolution to creativeness in the genes themselves, but not science to attribute them to creativeness originating outside the genes? That is the only difference between Jean Rostand’s theory and the theory of intelligent design. Most ID critics today would probably respond that Rostand’s theory should also be considered “not science”, in fact, it could be easily argued that Rostand—though an atheist–was himself an ID proponent. But we all agree that the human brain is capable of creativeness, so I would then respond: why is it science to attribute creativeness to one part of an organism and “not science” to attribute creativeness to another part?
PostScript—in light of some comments below, let me make it clear that the issue being discussed is NOT whether or not the evidence supports any of these ideas, but whether they can be dismissed a priori as “not science”, before looking at the evidence. Darwinism is obviously a scientific theory, whether it is good science is another question. If Rostand’s theory is accepted as scientific, and housed in the biology library of a National Lab, there seems to be no reason to reject ID as “not science”, before looking at the evidence, as most scientists today still do. And if it is scientific to attribute creativity to the brain, how can it be “unscientific” to attribute creativity to the genes, as Rostand does? Whether the evidence supports Rostand’s theory is a completely separate issue.
209 Responses to A 30-year old letter to the editor of the Purdue Exponent
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you sparc, that is the plan anyway…
DATCG:
Have you ever heard the question “why are there still monkeys?” One answer that biologists give is that humans did not descend from the monkeys we see today, but from other primates. I think there’s a better, more succinct way of putting it: evolution does not require that descendant species “replace” their ancestors. Some descendants of Tiktaalik gradually adapted to life on land, and some didn’t. Species don’t come to unanimous decisions about what environments to remain in. It’s true that if some Tiktaaliks remained in the water, they probably would have changed a fair amount due to the usual drift. But that’s not a guarantee — consider sharks, for instance.
On top of all that, no one is saying that Tiktaalik is definitely an ancestor to modern tetrapods. In fact, it’s more likely an “uncle”, because the odds of hitting upon an exact ancestor in one particular line of descent are pretty low, so all we can do is describe the degree of closeness between any two species. What Tiktaalik does show is that such a transition is possible. Even if it’s a weird “mosaic” made by the designer, Tiktaalik shows what an intermediary would look like, and that it’s therefore possible. The ID-sans-UCD hypothesis has never explained the designer’s motive in making such intermediaries.
Nakashima:
Ah, but Nakashima, we still haven’t found those fossils by today, July 10, 2009. Time’s up!
(Not to mention that whatever those paleontologists say, 90% of organisms fossilize. They do, I swear.)
Mr Leonoxus,
Ah, but Nakashima, we still haven’t found those fossils by today, July 10, 2009. Time’s up!
(Not to mention that whatever those paleontologists say, 90% of organisms fossilize. They do, I swear.)
I thought we had until 2012? I’d better reset my secret decoder ring.
What is the genetic data which demonstrates such a transition- from fish to tetrapod- is even possible?
Also the vast majority (>95%) of the fossil record is of marine inverts- which is to be expected given what we know about the fossilization process.
Yet in that vast majority evidence for universal common descent is missing.
IOW you guys seem to think that science is done via imagination and promissory notes.
Joseph:
Something just occurred to me in reading this. It’s this: when it comes to debates, evolution’s curse is its details. The theory is so immensely detailed in terms of evidence that there’s always another pathway to attack it on. One it’s been demonstrated beyond a doubt that the Tiktaalik fossil is intermediary, you can ask for the genetic evidence (never mind, of course, that obviously no extinct fishapod specimen has surviving DNA).
My own brief web-research prompted by that question suggests that there are plenty of studies analyzing the genetic divergence between fish and tetrapods. (You’ll like this one, as it relates to front-loading.) No studies, however, appear to examine the question of whether the transition is “possible”. This is likely because very few people are raising the question. The question is kind of silly, given the fossil evidence of intermediaries, indicating that such a transition almost certainly happened. (Not to mention the morphological similarities between the relevant limbs, etc.) The only real question at this point is, which environmental factors spurred the selection for these limbs? There are plenty of different hypotheses out there, and perhaps one of them, thanks to the advantage of evidence, will win out in our lifetimes.
Compare this to the following question: What is the data which demonstrates such a transition- from fish to tetrapod- is even possible for the designer to bring about? I’m being silly, because we all know that anything is possible for the designer. This saves you, I think, from the obligation of having to give an answer. I could very well ask that same question of every major evolutionary transition, but that would be wasting time.
Whereas intelligent design…?
Mr Leonoxus,
What is really amusing is that when you _start_ with the genetic evidence, such as the switch to woody perennial from annual in a plant, then the discussion becomes about something else. But you are correct, Mr Joseph’s default comeback to fossil evidence is a demand for genetic evidence of the same thing.
Please excuse me for misspelling your name!
Nakashima — that’s fine, I think I might actually like it better! On another website, people have called me “Leno” for short (and I’m not much of a Jay Leno fan); “Leono” sounds cooler…
1- The transitionals exist in the minds of those who need them
2- There isn’t any genetic evidence to demonstrate the transformations are possible
3- The plant thing has been explained.
I can’t help it if you refuse to understand the explanation.
Melzer S, Lens F, Gennen J, Vanneste S, Rohde A, Beeckman T. 2008. Flowering-time genes modulate meristem determinacy and growth form in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature Genetics, published online: 9 November 2008-
Art Hunt sez the following:
IOW nothing natural about the process.
joseph:
i am not a scientist, but isn’t that how all experiment are carried out? do you think this process could not have happened naturally?
ohyes-
Two simultaneous and specified mutations occurring naturally?
Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution
Not likely.
However perhaps someone could plant thousands or even millions of these plants and see what happens.
BTW are the experiments with fruit flies in which the fruit fly developed an extra pair of wings also evidence for macroevolution?
How about the fruit fly with a leg for an antennae?
If we go by the absurd claims of evolutionists then both would be evidence for macroevolution.