Creationism vs Evolution (Part 2)

There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for the theory of gravity. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you should read Essential Cell Biology or browse NCBI or Talk Origins before you claim that it's "more or less consistent with the evidence". The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. In fact, since evolution is now used as the basis of algorithms denying evolution is exactly analogous to using "F=mv". Want to find a protein similar to the one you've just purified and sequenced? Try doing it without resorting to the mathematics of molecular evolution. The difference between ID and evolution is the difference between gene splices that work and splices that don't.
Intelligent design, unlike evolution, is by definition not falsifiable. Therefore it is not "provable". It is only "consistent" with the evidence if one accepts the same explanation for every piece of evidence. Lest it be thought that biologists commit the same mistake with the theory of evolution, it should be pointed out that there are many biological phenomena that are explained by molecular biological mechanisms that are unrelated to the classical Darwinian model of selection via random walks on DNA sequences. Here are a few examples - I can come up with many more for those interested.

1. The jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. There is a lot of evidence (based on sequence identity between mitochondrial DNA and prokaryotic DNA) to indicate that prokaryotes were absorbed by primitive eukaryotes and formed a symbiotic relationship that's reflected in the mitochondria and chloroplasts of modern cells. This was not a sequence level perturbation, but it was a fitness perturbation that resulted in a selective advantage.
2. The SOS response. When certain bacteria are starved, the rate of mutation itself is altered by environmental factors. This produces variation when it's most needed, when the cell is desperate. Again, this is non-classical Darwinism.
3. Horizontal gene transfer in bacterial cells. Bacteria exchange genes back and forth by all kinds of methods, much more frequently than higher organisms. Again, this is non-classical Darwinian evolution because the fitness perturbation is from gene transfer rather than sequence perturbation.

The point is that biologists can and do accept explanations other than classical Darwinian evolution when such explanations are in accord with observations. It's not as if biologists are unable to look at alternate plausible theories that are compatible with our knowledge of molecular biology when they also fit the data. ID proponents do not, because ID is nothing more than the "God of the Gaps". Every time a biochemical scenario is validated for one pathway's origin (say, by tracing it through hundreds of species) then ID proponents fix attention on the holes in another pathway. It is impossible to satisfy them because every pathway that has not (yet) been exhaustively characterized becomes the work of a divine hand.

Is ID a cover for Christian creation theories? Absolutely, and while I'm no lawyer it seems the Establishment Clause forbids the teaching of ID on these grounds. Remember, ID presumes an intelligent being responsible for our creation. Usually the rationale afforded is that we are too complex to have arisen from abiogenesis. Of course, such an argument sets up an infinite recursion, which we can see as follows:

1. Let us call our "complexity" C1. By assumption, anything with complexity at least C1 cannot have arisen from abiogenesis.
   
2. Let us call the complexity of our putative creators C2. C2 must be greater than or equal to C1. Otherwise a less complex being could have created us.
   
3. By assumption 1, anything with complexity C1 (or greater) cannot have abiotically arisen. Thus there must be a creator for C2. This creator must have complexity C3 greater than or equal to C2.

It's clear that this recursion doesn't terminate. In other words, the creator, of the creator, of the creator. If it isn't logical, as ID assumes, to assume that abiogenesis (aka, that we emerged) doesn't explain our existence, then how could it be logical to explain Gods existence?

ID is not science. At best, ID is a theological position - and a shaky one at that.

Creationism vs Evolution (Part I)

The Creationist Periodic Table of Elements. There's no doubt, creationism, or intelligent design (ID) is reaching new levels of popularity (and hilarity) in today's world. In fact, just last week I recieved an unwanted snail-mailed publication called "Last Generation" which has a substaintial creationist bent.

Even fellow bloggers have went to bat in support for this "alternative theory". Such as Volokh.

In any case, many supporters of "ID" claim that: "it posits something that may or may not be true (organisms "look like they were designed because they were designed," to quote one proponent of the intelligent design school, UC Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson) -- and that is in fact more plausible to many people than evolution is."

Now, however tempted I am to go on a diatribe pointing out this is a law professor, not a professor in the sciences, I won't. I'll just leave it at that.

Should we decide whether to teach things because they're "plausible" to people? Of course not. Most people think it's plausible that "F=mv", (That is, Force=motion * velocity) because they need to exert a constant force to keep a body in motion on a frictional surface. We disabuse them of this notion because we've learned by hard experience that, actually, "F=ma", (That is, Force=motion * acceleration) and that "F=mv" only seems to explain the case of a block on a frictional surface. The difference between "F=ma" and "F=mv" is the difference between a bridge that collapses and a bridge that stands.

Evolution, like physics and all other sciences has mathematics at its core. As we all know mathematics is based on a system of axioms that are (in principle) independent of the outside world, while ID is a statement about the outside world.

ID is analogous to this same misconception that produced "F=mv". Like "F=mv", it is manifestly false because it provides no explanatory value. What does the "theory" of ID predict? NOTHING - it simply provides a post facto rationalization for some of the processes observed in biology. Just like "F=mv" vs. "F=ma", ID chokes on those cases that are explained elegantly by the theory of evolution. ID's "answer" is always the same:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? The designer put it there.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? The designer put it there.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? The designer put it there.

Contrast these to the explanations offered by biology:

1. Observe overwhelming sequence similarity at the molecular scale? Molecular Phylogenetics.
2. Observe a convoluted molecular mechanism that seems to waste energy? Explantion of photorespiration.
3. Observe the same process implemented in hundreds of different ways? Convergent Evolution.

Even supporters of ID must admit that the only reason it is clung to like a dog on a milkbone is to keep from sinking into a sense of nihilism when they realize that God may very well not be in control - and indeed regulated to the level of superstition.

,,Die Augen sind die Seelefenster"

That's a nifty little german phrase, its english-approximate being "Eyes are the window of the soul." And as it turns out, it may just be true. Anthropologists have uncovered some interesting findings about our eyes and how others percieve us.
Of course, how we "read" people determines an essential aspect of choosing your future partner. As it turns out, the iris of the eye has two physical traits that have been linked to personality differences. The number of "crypts" or pits in the iris signal how likely you are to be warm, tender and trusting. And the number of "furrows," or curving lines along the outer edge of the iris, signal the degree to which you are likely to be neurotic, impulsive and willing to assuage your cravings. In both cases, the more crypts or furrows, the more likely you are to be, respectively, tender hearted or spontaneous. These traits develop in the womb. In short, we have evolved a remarkable and subtle biological strategy to signal who we are.
In an evolutionary sense, this is a very efficient strategy of helping determine potential mates -- afterall, anything that saves time (instead of spending several months or even years trying to figure out if someone is really loyal, or just manipulative) is inheriently energy saving. Thus, you save resources; and have a better chance of survival. In a wider sense; finding loyal mates that will stick around and support offspring, and yourself, is in terms of survival: excellent.
This also leads to some interesting aspects of culture and history. Nearly every culture throughout history has accentuated the eyes to some extent. Ancient near-eastern peoples would use makeups. For Egyptians specifically, both men and women would use mascara to draw attention to the eyes (plus, the darker paints around the eyes reduce sun-glare -- similar to the way modern day football players stripe their faces before a game.) Not to mention cultural rules on maintaining eye-contact.

Source: http://www.helenfisher.typepad.com/