FL Citizens for Science says “Don’t Panic!” as Academic Freedom Bill Moves On
The Florida Academic Freedom bill (the one that says its ok to mention any other origin theory than Darwinism) made it through one hurdle today. The Florida Citizens for Science are none too happy but they know this is a long fight. We need to understand that as well. Check out their website and realize these folks are in it for the long haul. Don’t rest. Don’t Relax. We need you to make those phone calls again and again until this bill makes it all the way through. This a chance to let public schooled kids hear that Darwinism is not the only origin science that’s out there and that some thinking people have concerns.
Don’t let up now! This is a little battle in the long war. Be ready for setbacks and be ready to show support when we need it most.
OC
March 26 2008 07:49 pm | Education and Legislation and Rulings and The War
Mark J. Bobak on 27 Mar 2008 at 3:36 pm #
Evolution is the only scientific theory for the development and complexity of life that I’m aware of.
What other *scientific* theories would you like to see offered?
-Mark
OC on 27 Mar 2008 at 8:54 pm #
I agree, the plasticity of species and rapid adaptation that we see inside these species is incredible and speaks to the the development and complexity of life. Natural selection works quickly and effectively.
I just don’t see macroevolutionary changes in the evidence we have. I see great capacity for adaptation but no molecules to man evolution.
I think kids should learn the evidence for and against macroevolution. I don’t know of any testable, repeatable theory for origin science do you?
OC
Lynet on 28 Mar 2008 at 4:19 pm #
Yes, actually. I mentioned it on another post here. The relevant passage was:
Stephen P. Smith on 29 Mar 2008 at 8:27 am #
There are many alternative views about evolution that differ from Darwin’s narrow views. These other views are being silenced, and while said “experts” are found equivocating between evolution and Darwin’s evolution. The problem is with Darwin’s theory, and the problem does not extend to evolution. To see some of these alternative ideas see my book list:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Beyond-Darwin/lm/R21N3IK5VPAKGS/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full
OC on 04 Apr 2008 at 7:03 pm #
Lynet,
I spoke to my PhD Molecular/Microbiology friend and promptly forgot exactly what he had to say. I will offer the following and hope that he pops by for a guest post soon:
1. The information you provide seems to presuppose a fusion occurred. The fact that there is the same information on this chromosome does not necessarily mean it came from a fusion - We do have common traits with chimps so wouldn’t one expect the DNA to be similar?
2. Where is the data that shows that the expression of this so called “fusion” is either what accounts for the difference between humans and chimps or is of any phenotypic relevance at all? There are several examples of species where centromere fusions result in no real change in phenotypic expression. (Google Cytogenetics and reproduction of sheep with multiple centric fusions (Robertsonian translocations) for study) No significant expression means no evolutionary proof.
3. MiRNA differences in chimps and humans can and probably do alter gene expression significantly. MiRNA is appreciably more different in humans versus chimps than DNA and could actually be more responsible for the phenotypic differences between us and them than the DNA.
I am a fallible human as are we all. I think that it is presumptuous for us to assume that we understand enough at this point to take some observational science (exploring genetics) and assume that we can then extrapolate back in time. This historical science is not testable, repeatable, or observable.
OC
Lynet on 05 Apr 2008 at 12:01 pm #
It’s not mere similarity of information on the chromosome that we’re talking about. What we’re seeing is this:
1. A single human chromosome lines up pretty well exactly with two particular ape chromosomes, laid end to end.
2. In the middle of that human chromosome we find the remains of telomeres (chromosome end points).
3. This human chromosome has its centromere where the centromere occurs in one of the corresponding ape chromosomes. The remains of the centromere in the other chromosome can still be seen.
4. All of the above was predictable prior to its discovery, based on the theory of evolution. Not only was it predictable, if we hadn’t found it, we’d be in trouble. This is basically a paradigm case of a scientific test (see below).
What the heck? Where on Earth do you get that idea? Why are the contents of chromosomes not possible proof if they don’t change the creature’s phenotype significantly in this case? We’re not discussing an evolutionary change in phenotype. We’re discussing biological evidence for an evolutionary change in genetics.
In point of fact, note your entirely reasonable question above: “We do have common traits with chimps so wouldn’t one expect the DNA to be similar?” Well, yes — we’d expect it to be phenotypically similar. It’s when it starts being similar in non-phenotypically-relevant ways that the evidence starts to really point to shared genetic history. Aside from evolution, there’s no reason for phenotypically similar species to share the same copy of a broken gene in a similar place, for example. And if we didn’t have a theory of evolution, there would be no way to predict just from phenotypes that one of our chromosomes has the remains of telomeres in the middle!
That’s very interesting. It doesn’t change my original point at all, though.
You can say that as many times as you like but it doesn’t make it true. Are you honestly not familiar with the idea of a scientific test as ‘A repeatable or widely observable situation where we would expect the evidence to directly contradict a prediction of our theory if it happens to be wrong’?
OC on 17 Apr 2008 at 10:45 am #
Lynet,
I am OC’s PhD Micro/Molecular Biologist Christian friend. I want to say early on that I empathize with you and your position as I have been down a similar road in my views of both science and faith. My goal in this post is to share a bit of my own journey with you, but then also to challenge you on the necessity of faith in your own life (Hebrews 11:6).
I was born again as a Christian at age 31. By then I had already been immersed into science and had co-authored several publications on molecular mechanisms of HIV pathogenesis. After I became a Christian, I embraced an Intelligent Design/Creationist viewpoint, which was easy enough to do because I trust God at His Word. At age 40 I went back to grad school to earn my PhD. I was blown away by the technology (a lot attributed to advances in the Human Genome Project…as just one example) as well as the emphasis to adopt a Darwinian evolution mindset (I guess the latter was probably there for my undergrad and Masters work, but I suspect as a non-Christian that I was indifferent to it). Some of my Christian friends had counseled me to avoid Biology as the topic of my dissertation since they were concerned that it would “corrupt” my faith. I should also point out that some members of my graduate committee were skeptical of my Christian views relating to science. I found myself facing a paradox. My solution – never abandoning my faith (Matthew 10:33; 1 Corinthians 2:2), I graciously ignored the advice of my few friends and studied microbial genomics with an emphasis on geographical divergence and pathogenesis.
My faith actually grew stronger during the course of my studies and own research. I believe God opened my eyes to see His majesty in creation, and that He is the author of the various mechanisms that microbes have used in “micro-evolutionary” processes. I believe that He is truly the author of all commonality and yet diversity of life. I still trust God at His Word even though it is difficult to reconcile with conclusions from science suggesting naturalistic processes must have taken at least millions of years. As a man of faith, I trust that God, as the author of creation itself, skillfully worked out the details to include placing His signature on His work. This signature consists of 4 common building blocks: As, Ts, Cs, Gs, used for programming all of life with its observed variety. The one key difference between the rest of life and Homo sapiens is that He created man in His own image (Genesis 1:27).
In addressing the discussion on the topic of evolution of humans from primates, I cannot find a satisfying explanation from the argument you introduced involving the fusion at chromosome 2. From my own research I discovered that, at least in microbes, there exist numerous mechanisms that allow genetic recombination (i.e., insertion sequence elements, bacteriaphages, transposons, gene cassettes, integrons, etc.), not to mention simple homologous recombination sites. It seems that whereas there has been clear evidence of evolution among microbial species, there has also been “divergence” from gain or loss of genetic material (i.e., horizontal gene transfer) through these mechanisms, not always resulting in new species, but often resulting in different phenotypes, especially involving pathogenicity (one strain being more deadly than another). My hypothesis is that God, during creation, also created the tools that would be necessary for such divergence. In other words, the sites for recombination were likely encoded into the genomes, and as time has evolved, He has graciously superintended the necessary genetic transfer or recombination events to allow survival as each organism has been required to adapt to evolving environmental niches (a.k.a. natural selection, but under Divine supervision, if you will).
As for creation itself, my hypothesis continues in that God was very creative and efficient, and that He wasted nothing. He invented the Central Dogma in Biology: DNA ? RNA ? Protein. He was intentional in His design to ensure that the linear DNA code would result in the proper proteins for structure and function…so by my hypothesis, I am able to account for why human chromosome 2 could appear as the remnants from fusion of 2 primate chromosomes…because He used what was already proven successful for the primates, but to make homo sapiens unique, He fashioned our genome differently (evidenced by the observations in human chromosome 2, for example…though there are other examples as well) resulting in our unique phenotype which He has graciously superintended to survive as He has for all other created life.
I realize my explanation probably doesn’t present the level of technical challenge I believe you are worthy of, however, my intent wasn’t to necessarily persuade you to adopt my hypothesis, but rather to help you see the need for faith. Faith makes a tremendous difference – to trust that a loving God intelligently created all of life with all its variety and yet commonality (DNA). Faith gives me the ability to trust an unseen God…in a creation story that I may never be able to prove through scientific means in this life, but one in which I’ll be able to discuss with the Creator Himself in the life to come (Revelation 4:11).
There is just one more example that I’d like to share with you. I was impressed by Dr. Francis Collin’s book, The Language of God. He is the head of the Human Genome Project and one of the world’s leading scientists working at the cutting edge of the study of DNA. In his book, Dr. Collins describes his journey from agnosticism to atheism to Christianity. Although we have some considerable differences, he is a man of great faith. In the following excerpt from The Language of God (pages 30-31), Dr. Collins says of his own journey,
…Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief.
It also became clear to me that science, despite its unquestioned powers in unraveling the mysteries of the natural world, would get me no further in resolving the question of God. If God exists, then He must be outside the natural world, and therefore the tools of science are not the right ones to learn about Him. Instead, as I was beginning to understand from looking into my own heart, the evidence of God’s existence would have to come from other directions, and the ultimate decision would be based on faith, not proof. Still beset by rolling uncertainties of what path I had started down, I had to admit that I had reached the threshold of accepting the possibility of a spiritual worldview, including the existence of God.
It seemed impossible either to go forward or to turn back. Years later, I encountered a sonnet by Sheldon Vanauken [Severe Mercy] that precisely described my dilemma. Its concluding lines:
Between the probable and proved there yawns
A gap. Afraid to jump, we stand absurd,
Then to see behind us sink the ground and, worse,
Our very standpoint crumbling. Desperate dawns
Our only hope: to leap into the Word
That opens up the shuttered universe.
For a long time I stood trembling on the edge of this yawning gap. Finally, seeing no escape, I leapt.
How can such beliefs be possible for a scientist? Aren’t many claims of religion incompatible with the “Show me the data” attitude of someone devoted to the study of chemistry, physics, biology, and medicine? By opening the door of my mind to its spiritual possibilities, had I started a war of worldviews that would consume me, ultimately facing a take-no-prisoners victory of one or the other?
For Dr. Collins, and for me, the answer is that we both find that passion for Christian faith and for science is not incompatible, and is actually complimentary. I pray that you will as well.
Sincerely,
SOC
Lynet on 18 Apr 2008 at 2:40 am #
Thanks for the response, SOC! I appreciate it.
I had the impression Francis Collins was perfectly willing to accept evolution. Am I wrong?
Yeah, but it’s a bit of a coincidence that He felt the need to put vestigial telomeres in the middle, there, isn’t it? Do you think He felt the need to put vestigial telomeres in the middle of other chromosomes that evolutionary theory would predict had been formed by fusion? (I don’t know that there are such vestigial telomeres in other creatures, actually. Care to make a prediction of your own?)
You’re making your faith do a lot of work, but it’s not science. Maybe your faith can explain this stuff away if you don’t care that it isn’t testable and can’t make predictions, but evolution is testable and does make predictions, and that makes it science in a way that Creationism isn’t. I guess that’s my point.
I appreciate your honesty, and I hope you don’t mind me belabouring my point here (I also hope you don’t mind my not-so-American spelling with a ‘u’ in ‘labour’ and its variants
).
As for the question of whether I need faith, well, I’m pretty sure I don’t need any sort of faith that has to contort its way around scientific evidence. Sometimes I have ‘faith’ in things: faith in those I love, faith in the justice system, faith in my ability to succeed. But I always know such ‘faith’ can fail, and if I found contrary evidence I’d never use ‘faith’ as a justification for ignoring it! For example, I’d never say “I have faith in the justice system so that man couldn’t have been wrongfully convicted.” I’d never say “I have faith in my ability to succeed so I couldn’t possibly have made the wrong choice back there.” When I use ‘faith’ in this sense, I mean fallible ordinary trust and hope, with all the checks and balances on it that such things need, not some unassailable thing that looks on mountains (formed geologically over millions of years) and is never shaken. I know it can fail. I expect that it will. When it does, well, sometimes there’s no answer. Sometimes you just fall down for a while and you have to collect yourself before you can rebuild. And sometimes all you can say is “I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned.”
“I am not resigned” is faith of a kind. Not faith in anything, just a willingness to hope when there is no hope. From hope we can create a life worth living.
It’s got nothing to do with mountains and DNA, though.
offensivechristian on 26 Apr 2008 at 5:00 pm #
Lynet,
Thank you for your reply.
In answer to your first question, yes, Dr. Collins does accept evolution as a mechanism for the observed biodiversity of life. I did state that, although I respect Dr. Collins, we do have some considerable differences in our scientific views. Our central common denominator, however, is that as Christians, we believe that all of humanity has rebelled against our Creator and are subject to the just penalty for our sins. In His great mercy, He sent His Son, Jesus, to die in our place…and not only that…for all who place their trust in Jesus and submit to His Lordship over their lives, He forgives their sins and receives them as His own sons and daughters both in this life and the one to come.
As for the vestigial telomeres, I am not surprised they would be there if God fused the two primate chromosomes in designing the human genome. Actually, I’d be surprised if they weren’t there; and actually, yes, I’d predict that other very closely related species may also have such remnant genetic signatures. Their presence would not shake my faith at all; it would be delightful yet humbling to think that God would allow me to make such fascinating discoveries about what may have actually occurred at the Creation.
While this would be awesome, this is not my primary focus in science. My primary focus in science is to learn about pathogens and their interactions with humans so that we can better control and even cure infectious diseases…to minimize, even eliminate, human suffering. I believe that my primary focus as a Christian is to share the Gospel – to tell the Good News about our Saviour who saves from sin (actually I sort of like the “British” spelling), and then to apply my talents as a scientist to try to bring hope to those who are suffering physically.
So back to the topic of faith. As you can see, one of my passions is to help people understand that we are a privileged species, created by God in His image to enjoy a relationship with Him as our loving creator. I may not get all the right answers on how God accomplished creation (although it poses very fascinating ideas which eternity will answer), but that’s most likely not on the test. What is on the test is how we choose to respond in light of the Gospel message – to continue to live life on our own terms and face judgment for our rebellion; or to submit to God’s terms and follow Jesus as Saviour and Lord. The latter does require faith, but the faith comes from God Himself. I do appreciate your sincerity and your apparent seeking for “hope” in your last statement:
“I am not resigned” is faith of a kind. Not faith in anything, just a willingness to hope when there is no hope. From hope we can create a life worth living”.
Please consider the Scripture from Ephesian 2:1-10 below:
1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
The transformation of being spiritually dead to being “alive” in Christ brings exceeding joy and hope. We realize that we aren’t simply living for the “here and now”, but that there’s an abundant life both “now and beyond” worth living.
Lynet, you are a very delightful and inquisitive individual. I pray that you find true “hope” in Christ.
Sincerely,
SOC