On my desk there is a slightly messy and seemingly bottomless pile of paper. The individual sheets are not pure white and blank, devoid of content. Rather, the pile consists of recent science findings in the form of select news releases spit from my printer. A few years back the title to one began with these words: Darwin Was Right. That article was generally about evolution acting at the group level, specifically about the discovered molecular mechanism that maintains social harmony in ants by controlling their sexual development.[i]
Of course, it would be crazy to believe that Charles Darwin was right about everything. He wasn’t. Darwin was neither omniscient nor infallible. His knowledge was incomplete; he may have made a few missteps among his many stellar advances. Yet those failures do not detract from the fact that the core element to his thinking—the evolution of species via variation and natural selection—was spot on. Every week I find confirmation of it in my pile of articles: of gaps being filled, of yet more hard data added to an already massive mountain of evidence, of the novel insights into the quirks and shortcomings of biological life that point not to the plan of a great creator, but to a process that generates what is from what was. From the ongoing work of contemporary scientists I learn of new pieces to the full picture of evolution. Which makes it even more curious to me that a belief in creationism remains strong. As readers of this magazine are aware, if creationism had a textbook of findings specifically befitting their theory (cough-cough), most of those pages would be blank.
In a mildly ironic development, the very day I read about molecular mechanisms within non-reproducing ants, announced with the words, Darwin Was Right, I ran across a poll on the AOL news website that asked this question:
Which explanation about the origins of life on Earth do you believe in?
The results of over 200,000 respondents, when I weighed in with my minority viewpoint (that sadly remains a minority position to this day):
Creationism 47%
Evolution 35%
Intelligent design 12%
None of the above 6%[ii]
My first thought: My, we’ve got some slow learners out there. But in fairness, the problem is not likely an innate handicap of the intellectual variety. It instead probably stems from the who, what, and why of those doing the teaching, as well as the motivation of the students. Due largely to religion, many folk apparently prize the meaning of a solution over the validity of it. The result is an acquired learning disability.
THE PROBLEM
Skeptics work to counteract creationism. This is not because we are hostile to any and all religion, but because it is our nature to question and combat claims that strike us as bogus. Many a skeptic will get equally passionate arguing against evidence for alien spacecraft, even though he or she would be absolutely thrilled by a real occurrence of it.
So how do we combat the counterfeit claims of creationism? How do we repel the push to inject it into our public school curricula? For one, we applaud and support people and organizations like Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education and Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society. Yet when encountering creationist thinking in our daily lives, what can we do? Opposing the many fraudulent anti-evolution arguments seems a Sisyphean task. Flaws in old arguments are repeatedly pointed out, the goal-posts moved back to where they belong . . . etc.
Sometimes I wonder whether in some circumstances a different approach could yield better results. Rather than refuting creationist assaults on evolution ad nauseam, a more productive tactic may be to turn the proverbial tables. One smart, specific question asked of a creationist, followed by their silence and/or floundering response, can make a strong impression. This is a tactic that polished creationists frequently employ. “Well, if evolution is true, why don’t you explain this to me, smart guy!”
Instead of focusing on the defense of evolution, why not put some energy into the asking of disabling particulars of the creationist stance? After all, if creationism deserves serious consideration as a science, or an educational alternative to it, it should provide some intelligent answers; it should offer knowledge. Of course, this ploy won’t outright win an argument, but that is rarely a realistic possibility. Perhaps the best we can do in such situations is to sow seeds of doubt in the creationist confronting us, or, more likely, in those on the periphery listening in.
In my recent few years of reading science articles and blogging about them, I have shared numerous evolutionary findings.[iii] In reviewing them, I have gleaned three themes with the potential to diminish the confidence of individuals leaning toward the creationist camp. In a series of three articles, I will share them. They are: 1. The Emperor is All Gaps, 2. A Mountain of Evidence versus a Divot of Questions, and 3. The Imperfect Fabric of Life. In the paragraphs that follow I hope you find a few good seeds to sow in your own encounters with individuals who have thus far failed to arrive at the best solution to the puzzle of biological life.
Part I – The Emperor is All Gaps
Creationists of yore—and those today behind the curve of cutting-edge creationism(!)— were and are fond of pointing out that such things as the eye is so incredible complex that no single, random mutation could give rise to it. Because part of an eye is of no use, evolution can’t account for it. But wait a minute. For many years this gap has been filled. Sadly, in a move reminiscent of one of Zeno’s paradoxes, the creationist is likely to respond, “Sure, you have explained x, but you are still only halfway there!”
Not only is half an eye not worthless, but neither is a fraction of an eye. One sheet of desktop reading informed me,
“Larvae of marine invertebrates—worms, sponges, jellyfish—have the simplest eyes that exist. They consist of no more than two cells: a photoreceptor cell and a pigment cell. These minimal eyes, called eyespots, resemble the ‘proto-eyes’ suggested by Charles Darwin as the first eyes to appear in animal evolution. They cannot form images but allow the animal to sense the direction of light. This ability is crucial for phototaxis – the swimming towards light exhibited by many zooplankton larvae. Myriads of planktonic animals travel guided by light every day. Their movements drive the biggest transport of biomass on earth.”[iv]
In an act so incongruous that it strikes me as humorous, creationists habitually highlight gaps in the body of evolutionary knowledge, real or imagined. In fairness to our side, I would like to point out that we of the pro-evolution persuasion do lack something—a body of knowledge, or even a set of testable hypotheses, on their part to evaluate, analyze, critique and question. What to do?
One might summarize the creationist position as nothing more than a single, massive gap filled with a solitary agent. A creator.[v] An all-too-common mistake, as I see it, is to resort to rebutting the existence of that creator. An alternative and potentially more fruitful course might be to instead “flesh out” the gaps in their position. Politely ask them to explain a biological finding that naturally fits into the evolutionary body of knowledge. By doing this you will highlight the impoverished state of their supposed knowing
Sure, many a creationist will pull out the tired, old, shrug-of-the-shoulders response: the answer is “God”—who works in mysterious ways. The proper reaction to this is to point out that the explanation they just gave is a non-explanation. It would score a zero on any minimally stringent test of knowledge.
A WHALE OF A TALE
Consider, for example, the whale. The whale in isolation is a curious creature. A warm-blooded mammal, it generally spends its life in deep, frigid oceans, yet breaths air and has thick layers of blubber to help maintain body temperature. Two new sets of whale fossils were discovered in 2000 and 2004. There are no living specimens of these whales anywhere in the world. From the layout and analysis of the bones, the fossils of one set were of a male, a female, and a fetus within the female.[vi]
Challenge for creationists: The species, Maiacetus had four legs, shaped much like flippers, as in the case of other archaeocetes. Judging by the skeleton, these whales were able to support their weight on land, but could not travel far. Please explain the location of the animal remains: the mountains of Pakistan.
The fetus within the female was positioned for head-first delivery, like land mammals but unlike modern whales. Please explain.
If any lame answer is given, ask this very appropriate follow-up question: And how do you know this? Please be specific.
Speaking of archaeocetes, a paper published in 2009 analyzed the “massive data set of the morphology, behavior, and genetics of living and fossil relatives” to today’s half mammal, half-fish, the cetaceans.[vii] Included in this group are dolphins and whales,
Using evidence including DNA analysis, the study confirmed that of all the other species, cetaceans are most closely related to the hippopotamus. As has been asserted for some time. Please explain.
One extinct cetacean ancestor, Ambulocetus natans, its fossil determined to be 48 million years old, might be described as a “whippo,” or maybe an “orcapotamus.” This creature’s form might seem strange to us, even fanciful, because none exist today to become accustomed to, as we have with such other peculiar creatures as the platypus, the narwhal, the giraffe, etc. (Don’t get me started on the scores of insects that, if projected onto a big screen would make one suspect some artists at Pixar had dropped acid prior to drawing them up.) But back to Ambulocetus natans. From skeletons preserved in rock we have learned it had a shape and size reminiscent of a crocodile, but swam with not a side-to-side motion, but rather up-and-down.[viii] Like the otter and the whale. Please explain.
THE MISSING SUPER
With its programmable 8-way power seats, its remote-controlled power windows, its blazing acceleration, its vision-blurring top speed, its “Electronic brakeforce distribution” and tire-pressure monitoring systems, etc., a 2012 Mercedes-Benz might seem an altogether different kind of vehicle than a 1908 Model T Ford. Yet the Benz is still an automobile. Dismantle both vehicles and you will be left with a pile of distinct components: mechanical, electrical, chemical. And that’s all.
Likewise, we human beings consider our own kind to be so impressively advanced as to deserve a class of our own. But as with the Benz, we are built from 100% natural stuff. When disassembled we find no soul, no floating point of light, no void where a supernatural element must be. For many a creationist, this fact is distasteful to the utmost. It may actually be the deal-breaker for accepting evolution.
Unfortunately for those wishing otherwise, insights into the inglorious nature of our kind continue to accumulate. Such as the unearthing of new fossil “kinds” like man, yet also like animal. How is a creationist to maintain his or her cherished dualism? Sadly for them, rather than skeletons in their closet, creationists have fearful fossils beneath their feet. In 2004, to give one example, a new hominid species was discovered in Spain.[ix]
Challenge to creationists: Anoiapithecus brevirostris—discovered in a fossil-rich area (making more discoveries likely) and dated at 12 million years—is notable primarily because many of its facial characteristics are uniquely shared with our kind. Please explain. Kindly also explain what kind of predictions your system of thought makes about future fossil finds.
When contemplating human characteristics in light of our close animal relatives, the notion of the soul becomes superfluous. Sure, our ability to communicate appears light-years ahead, but this is akin to using a dashboard GPS unit relative to the old-school paper map. Only those myopically anthropocentric will see our kind as absolutely separate and unequal, possessing one or a number of traits whole-clothe unique. This is not the case. Ask a primatologist.
In terms of our biological nuts-and-bolts, it begins with DNA. I give a thumbs-up to one bit of research about genes that control the development of the human fifth digit. In a news release titled, “Yale Researchers Find ‘Junk DNA’ May Have Triggered Key Evolutionary Changes In Human Thumb And Foot,” I found:
“Results from a comparative analysis of the human, chimpanzee, rhesus macaque and other genomes reported in the journal Science suggest our evolution may have been driven not only by sequence changes in genes, but by changes in areas of the genome once thought of as ‘junk DNA.’”[x]
The gene in question is HACNS1, and experiments discovered that when activated in mice, the human version caused changes in the development of the ankle, foot, thumb and wrist. The chimpanzee and rhesus versions of HACNS1 did not. Creationists, please explain this real feature of creation.
Elsewhere on the human DNA chain we find the FOXP2 gene. A 2009 study published in Nature shared some interesting findings about it. Chief among these being that mutations of the human form of the FOXP2 gene in humans cause disruptions in speech and language. The chimpanzee has a different form of the gene. They also have different vocal abilities.[xi] Creationists, please explain.
With each passing year, scientists are discovering yet more whats and hows of the genomes of wildly diverse species. They are fleshing out the thousands of regulatory elements that act as genetic switches, turning genes on or off. Meanwhile, in the creationist camp . . . crickets.
NO HOWS, NO WAYS
Scientists tend to shy away from why questions, not necessarily because these questions are too big to handle and don’t readily lend themselves to reductionist methods, but because they aren’t scientific. Case in point would be this philosophical biggie: Why does the universe exist? When worded with a why, the question begs a response relative to social and emotional concerns. If the answer resides outside these, the use of the word why curbs the endeavor to understand.
To think more scientifically an individual must change their why questions to how. While why implies intention and purpose, how directs our attention to the verifiable workings of the world. A strategy of creationists is to frame questions in why language. Resist the urge to go there. Remain scientific—keep the focus on the how.[xii]
As the saying goes, science is limited relative to religion. Scientists can’t just “make stuff up” and get away with it. This brings to mind the classic Sidney Harris cartoon that depicts two scientists at a blackboard contemplating a complex equation. There is a gap in the middle of a string of mathematical symbols. The gap has been filled with the words, “And then a miracle happens.” One scientist says to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” Yes, a better understanding demands we be more explicit. Likewise, we should ask creationists to be explicit, to fill in the ways and hows of creation. If this can’t be provided, no claim to having knowledge can be reasonably made.
Nature isn’t an empty spot on a blackboard. There are many, many things we already know. There are many other things we are in the process of learning. On such thing is manifest by the extravagant tail of the peacock. In news of research into “showy male traits” from 2008, I found this sentence:
“A team of Wisconsin scientists has turned from the question of why such male traits exist to precisely how they evolved.”[xiii]
Turning from why to how is indeed good science. As for the how, the answer resides in the evolution and regulation of what else but gene sequences.
In fruit flies the males’ abdomens sport “tail ends” that are colorful and obviously ornamental. The females do not. Why? How does this happen? How did this come to be? The females of the species have the same genetic circuit, but it is activated differently; the trait is then “repressed.”
Challenge to creationists: Females of many species have genes capable of making them more colorful, more beautiful, and yet these genes are inactive. Please explain.
Not only does the very ground creationists walk upon contain fossil evidence they must deny or rationalize away, but the rapidly advancing field of genetics is uncovering a trail of clues leading back to not a magic creator, but to more primitive ancestral forms.
Almost as shocking as links going back in deep time are the links of relatively recent origin. Consider the findings of this run-of-the-mill science news release titled, “Evolutionary Event Underlying Origin Of Dachshunds, Dogs With Short Legs, Discovered.”[xiv]
In brief, the research found that a single, distinct evolutionary event nicely accounts for the characteristically short, curved legs of contemporary dachshunds and other breeds with stunted legs. After examining over 40,000 DNA segments in dogs, a string of code was discovered that is present only in short-legged dogs—corgis, basset hounds, dachshunds and more than a dozen other breeds.
As for the explicitly scientific how–
“Specifically, the researchers found that in contrast to other dog breeds, all short-legged dog breeds have an extra copy of the gene that codes for a growth-promoting protein called fibroblast growth factor 4 (FGF4). Although functional, the extra gene lacks certain parts of the DNA code, called introns, found in normal genes. These characteristics led researchers to conclude that the extra gene is a so-called retrogene that was inserted into the dog genome some time after the ancestor of modern dog breeds diverged from wolves.”
If you have dogs in your house, you are living in a natural history museum of a near-term variety.
Creationists, the appearance of the dachshund was a recent event. Certainly, none of these animals could have been passengers of Noah’s 40-day cruise. Please explain how this distinct form came to be. Be specific.
A WAR UNSOUGHT
The science findings supporting evolution keep coming. Yet the most important consequence of these is not that they promote a pro-Darwin, anti-creator stance. The ultimate purpose of scientific research is to advance our knowledge of the universe as well as to improve our control over it. Pure and simple, that is the aim of science. If there is a war between science and religion, it is a war scientists rather not fight. They have better things to do.
In part two of this three part series I will be sharing with you more bits to the accumulating body of evidence for evolution. Up next: “A Mountain of Evidence versus a Divot of Questions.”
Sphere: Related Content
