Species, baramin, or kind – the inadequacy of classification schema

Frequently in discussions between evolutionists and creationists, a central point of disagreement revolves around the origin of species, of which evolution claims to be the primary engine. Creationists deny that evolution is capable of such a feat, and even deny that species as a proper classification of organisms. In keeping with Biblical text, they instead adopt kind, or more properly baramin as the proper distinction between different types of organisms, and deny evolution the power to create this level of distinction.

 The problem with both classification schemas is that they are both based on either vague or arbitrary criteria. In the case of baramin, the Bible gives no detailed description of what distinguishes one ‘kind’ from another or any criteria by which to measure such a distinction. As Genesis is not a detailed science text, such criteria are not expected.

 However the term ‘species’, despite its long history and centrality to both biology and evolutionary theory, fairs no better. In fact the species problem is a long recognized issue in biology. In the simplest terms a species is an interbreeding population which is reproductively isolated from other populations; in reality populations are in constant flux, and despite years of relative isolation populations often find ways to interbreed.

 And the problem gets worse when considering the prehistory of life; indeed, a recent analyses of dinosaur ‘species’ found that up to a third of the dinosaur species may in fact not be species at all, but instead be different age groups and sexes of the same type of dinosaur.

Species or stages?

Such a finding also underlines the weaknesses of fossil interpretation when investigating life’s past. Indeed, this has the potential to call into question much of the supposed record of evolution said to be found in fossils, which purports to demonstrate the gradual appearance of species over time.

 As someone who favors intelligent design and who is a critic of evolution, I don’t necessarily have a dog in this fight. Indeed, I think it is better to focus on the origin of information, body plans, living systems and capabilities rather quibble over classification schema that are virtually impossible to actually define. But I have found, clarity is rarely the goal of such discussions.

Meyer vs. Ward Transcript

In a previous post I linked to an audio of the Peter Ward/ Stephen Meyer Intelligent Design debate. Here is a transcript of the debate for those with slower connections (or for those that prefer to read).

It highlights again the eminently reasonable arguments of Intelligent Design.

A Primer on Intelligent Design

I mentioned in an earlier post that I had long been interested in the science of life and its origins, and I have spent a number of years exploring the intersection between science and faith. In recent years, the conversation has centered primarily on Intelligent Design, a theory much talked about in the media, courts, schools, and scientific circles. To that end, I wanted to give those unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the issue an overview of the discussion to date.

Below are a series of questions and answers about Intelligent Design. I attempted to be as even-handed as possible, though I readily acknowledge that in general, I support intelligent design as a scientific theory.

What is Intelligent Design (ID)?

Intelligent Design is the scientific theory that states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as mutation and natural selection. It is a theory promulgated to answer this question, posed by William Dembski, an originator of the theory of ID, and one of its primary proponents:

Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause?

That question can be asked by anybody regardless of metaphysical belief; and the answer, presumably, wouldn't require a particular belief either.

To that end, two main criteria have been proposed to determine the earmarks of intelligent activity in the formation of an object (or organism) – they are irreducible complexity, and specified complexity.

Irreducible complexity is drawn from a statement by Charles Darwin:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
–Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189

Thus Michael Behe describes an irreducibly complex system this way:

"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"
–Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p. 9

In simpler terms, if you have a mechanism (for example, a mousetrap) you can only reduce that mechanism down to a certain number of parts before it ceases to function in any useful way; in biological terms, all the parts to a irreducibly complex biological system must be in place at once in order for it to function in any useful way and confer a survival advantage to the organism. Thus, such systems could not be formed by a series of gradual modifications as required by Darwinian evolution.

In the case of specified complexity, developed by William Dembski, the idea really centers on information patterns. If a pattern is both specified, and complex, it is a reliable marker of intelligent activity. Thus a mountain side may be complex, that is made up of a variety of materials, but it isn't specific in its arrangement. A crystalline structure like a diamond might be specific because its structure is organized in uniform a pattern, but they aren't really complex.

Intelligence allows for patterns that are both specified (organized) and complex, like written languages, computers codes, and machines. In short, it allows us to discern the degree to which intelligence played a part in the formation of Mount Rushmore versus the natural formation of a cliff wall.

These two criteria form the basis of intelligent design theory.

Does ID disprove evolution?

ID is primarily a criticism of evolution on one specific point; primarily that undirected causes such as mutation and natural selection are sufficient alone to account for the current genetic diversity we see in biological systems. Beyond that, it accepts other evolutionary concepts such as common descent, adaptive radiation, and natural selection.

Intelligent Design also acts as a critique of the natural origin of life and the universe, though this is not a criticism of evolutionary  theory which attempts  no explanation of life and the universe.

Is ID Creationism?

No – ID and Creationism have fundamentally different goals; creationism attempts to reconcile the narrative of Genesis with scientific theory; ID on the other hand simply attempts to answer the simple question, Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Of course, creationists often find the information ID provides as useful (just as they sometimes find the information provided by other sciences as useful) but this doesn't make ID and creationism the same thing.

Is ID science?

This depends how one defines science. If the standard definition is used, that is the investigation of the universe through hypothesis, observation, investigation and testing, well then yes, ID qualifies as science.

If one adds the current addendum that all explanations must be the product of wholly natural phenomenon (that is, non-intelligent, or non-directed forces) as does methodological naturalism, then ID wouldn't qualify as science; but of course, methodological naturalism also conceivably disqualifies science from answering fundamental questions about the origin of the universe, life, and the origin of species by dismissing viable explanations.

Didn't the court rule ID wasn't science?

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover case Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID was not science, and as such, could not be taught in the science classroom. If one holds that courtrooms are where science is conducted, then yes, at least in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, ID is not science, though of course the court also ruled ID may be true.

It is notable that to this day, evolution is the only scientific theory which requires court protection from detractors in order to maintain viability.

Aren't all supporters of intelligent design Christians?

No, actually a number of them aren't; among non-Christian ID supporters we have Anthony Flew (Agnostic), Michael Denton (agnostic), Mustafa Akyol (Muslim), Slade Gorton (Jewish). Of course, whether or not they are Christian is rather irrelevant; one could safely say 95% of atheists are evolutionists of one stripe or another, but that doesn't really say anything about whether or not evolution is the best explanation for the existence and variety of life on earth.

Does ID hurt science or science education?

I have always been perplexed by this idea; that somehow if ID were accepted as a viable alternative to evolution that all critical thinking would end. This runs counter to two obvious facts, the first being that historically science in large part is the product of a Christian culture that had no problem reconciling the existence of a Creator with natural exploration. In fact, many great scientists, among them Newton, Kepler, Bacon, and Pascal were notable commentators on theology as well as scientific icons.

The second obvious fact is that the debate between evolution and intelligent design is perhaps one of the most vibrant scientific discussions of the twenty-first century. It has driven an interest and exploration into origins and genetic capability, and the very structure of life. There is really only one side who wants to shut down discussion in the debate, and that side isn't supporters of intelligent design.

I hope this helps further the discussion now going on about Intelligent Design, both for supporters, critics, and the casual observer.

Meyer-Ward ID debate

As I mentioned in my previous post, the confluence between scientific thought and faith has long been a concern for me. Toward that end, I have been interested in the debate between evolutionists and those who see in nature the evidence for design. When I began college the primary critics of evolution were creationists; in recent years this criticism has taken the form of ID.

Over the years, one of the ways this difference has been explored has been through debates. I became intimately familiar with such debates in the early eighties when I helped organize a debate on the Iowa State campus between creationist Duane Gish and atheist Dr. John Patterson, then a professor at Iowa State. It was interesting, exciting, and raised many important questions, as well as sparking a dialogue on campus.

Recently, I was listening to another debate, this time between Dr. Stephen Meyer, a geophysicist and fellow with the Discovery Institute, and paleontologist Peter Ward from the University of Washington. What struck me about the debate, compared with earlier ones I had heard, was that the discussion had come a long way; both men were articulate, knowledgeable, and relatively respectful. And the science for intelligent design (ID) is there; thanks in large part to our growing understanding of the genome, ID is a science based on solid evidence – and a solid understanding of the relationship between intelligence, complexity, and design.

If you are interested in such things, I highly recommend the debate as a 'primer' on the issue. Audio files can be found here. I realize these files may be too big for some connections; unfortunately there is no transcript yet. There was an earlier debate that day between Meyers and Ward on an Oregon radio show – the transcript of that exchange is here. I would be interested in any feedback anyone has on these issues.

Fides scientia

I have been, for as long as I can remember, a science geek.

I don't know if I was born that way, or if I am just the product of  some unique environmental factors but I am certain it was a tendency encouraged by my parents. One of my earliest memories is of my father calling excitedly for my mother so she could hear me spell zoology. Another time, when I was still quite young, our wonderful neighbor Mrs. Schaeffer had a party for the neighborhood kids (she was known for having fun little parties for no particular reason) where kids could come dressed according to what they wanted to be when they grew up. I came as a pterodactyl.

Of particular interest to me was paleontology and biology; I was an avid reader early on, and my parents fed my habit with sets of encyclopedias – first the popular World Book Encyclopedia, then later a 20 volume set of the Encyclopedia of Animal life (written, interestingly, in the King's english – which to this day will still occasionally causes me to give certain words their British spelling, like colour and labour), as well as the entire Time-Life Nature library. 

One of my particular favorites in the Time-Life set was the volume Early Man. The volume included the obligatory multi-page centerfold timeline of the march of human evolution from a small ape-like ancestor to modern humans, as well as numerous illustrations of the same ancestors struggling for survival against hyenas, other proto-humans, and starvation, causing them to develop tools to hunt mammoths and protect themselves against predators. It was all so convincing.

I think it was around that time science, in particular, the study of evolution, became something more to me than a science theory; it became a faith. By faith, I mean it became something that I held to be true about life, something more than just a process, but rather something that explained why mankind was here, and where we might be going.

As I got older, and increasingly discouraged about the state of humanity – the desruction of the environment, the potential for cataclysmic war, the greed and hatred I saw around me, evolution also gave me hope. Bouyed by science popularizers like Sagan,  Asimov and Clarke, as well as the science fiction they wrote, like Childhood's End and the movie that shared it's themes, 2001 a Space Odyssey, I began to see evolutionary theory as the great hope of mankind. Just as we were once primordial ooze, and became human, so to we might overcome our earthly troubles and inherit the stars.

As a result, what little faith I might have had in God was relegated to agnosticism; I wasn't particularly hostile to the idea a god might exist, it just didn't seem to matter all that much.

Occasionally I would run into a backward thinking person who still held to the idea that God created the world and that some evidence for this existed; if I didn't automatically dismiss the person as uneducated or hopelessly wedded to some outlandish religious notions, I might attempt to dialogue. It usually wasn't long before it became a debate - and I loved to debate; particularly when my faith was being called into question. I rarely found it difficult however to knock down most of their ideas.

In 1982 I began my University career as a biology major, with plans to go on to veterinary school. It just so happened that around the same time a rather radical proposal had been made on campus; a professor of engineering, Dr. John Patterson, had proposed at a department meeting that any student who proclaimed a belief that God created the world should be denied a science degree. In addition to his teaching job, Prof. Patterson was also a widely known and very outspoken atheist – and his proposal was made in response to what he saw as the threat of creationism invading campus. Of course the proposal, once made public, created a furor on campus, with debates going on in the student paper and among the faculty and staff. I was rather amazed that even at the University level some still questioned evolution; indeed, I was becoming friends with someone who did, a fact I attributed to his small town upbringing.

But something else was happening that year; I was beginning to realize that whatever faith I had in nature, it wasn't sufficient to satisfy deep personal longings for meaning and purpose and change. While evolution might hold out some hope for the future of mankind, it held little hope for me personally; we might grow as a species, but I continued to fail even my own standards and expectations. I was as greedy and selfish as anyone else, and change seemed beyond me.

The same friend whose science I dismissed had an answer when it came to purpose and change, and that answer was Jesus Christ. Though I had early on dismissed Christianity, I couldn't deny my friend's life – or the joy and love and peace I saw in it. After nearly a year of wrangling with myself, and with a growing understanding of who Christ was and the reality of His existence, I surrendered my life to Christ, transferring my faith from a belief in the power of nature and myself to a faith in Christ.

That surrender, while it brought about dramatic changes in me, didn't alleviate all the questions I had. I still had a niggling feeling about the accuracy of Scripture, at least as much as it seemed to contradict my understanding of science. Thus, a lot of my twenty-plus years as Christian has been involved with considering the intersection of science and Scripture, and as a result, a lot of what I will consider here will concern that as well – my science geekdom remains unabated, so my apologies ahead of time to those whose interests lie elsewhere; you will have to endure the occasional technical discussion.  

Junkyard science

Interesting item I read recently concerning the latest discoveries about "junk DNA'; IBM has added to the body of evidence which indicates that it isn't so 'junky' after all.

IBM Discovery Could Shed New Light on Workings of the Human Genome 

From the article:

IBM today announced its researchers have discovered numerous DNA patterns shared by areas of the human genome that were thought to have little or no influence on its function and those areas that do.

As reported today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), regions of the human genome that were assumed to largely contain evolutionary leftovers (called "junk DNA") may actually hold significant clues that can add to scientists' understanding of cellular processes. IBM researchers have discovered that these regions contain numerous, short DNA "motifs," or repeating sequence fragments, which also are present in the parts of the genome that give rise to proteins.

If verified experimentally, the discovery suggests a potential connection between these coding and non-coding parts of the human genome that could have a profound impact on genomic research and provide important insights on the workings of cells.

The existence of non-coding (junk) DNA has for sometime now been an arguement for the evolution of the genome – or more properly as evidence against the design of the genome; after all, if the genetic code was designed by an intelligent designer, why would the design include so much that is useless or inefficient? This contention borders on a prediction, which evolutionary theory is generally loathe to make. Recent research though has trended to weigh against this contention; and IBM's research only continues this trend. In short, the evolutionary prediction is being proved wrong.

One question comes to mind though, is why did the initial assessors of what appeared to non-coding regions of the genome rush to see it as 'junk'? I am inclined to think this has much to do with the evolutionary bias within the biological sciences community. The assumption there is always that all organisms are the product of chance and circumstance; there was no directive force in their development, and thus there is no reason to look at the structure of organisms in a way that appreciates the complexity and the inter-dependence of of the make-up of the organism.

The IBM researchers aren't necessarily burdened with the same predilections. Being familiar with coded operations through their previous work with other designed systems which operate from codes, they are free to appreciate the genome for what it is – a highly complex coded information system – and study it accordingly. As a result, they are finding things the biologists and geneticists apparently couldn't see.

It may be this is an inevitable trend. As we become more aware of the the make-up of living organisms, and as information engineers study the codes and bioengineers seek to imitate the machinery of life , it becomes more apparent that the design of life surpasses our most advanced capabilities – and the predisposition of biological scientists to ignore this fact is becoming embarrasingly obvious.

Esos monos tontos

I am not sure where to file this one, but I think it highlights the absurdity of modern scientific/evolutionary thinking:

Socialists: Give apes human rights

The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans.

Personally, I am not sure what the Socialists in Spain hope to gain by this; I have seen King Kong, and he definitely doesn't vote Socialist.