|
| |
Book Review
Science On Trial: The Case For Evolution, by Dr. Douglas J.
Futuyma (New York: Pantheon Books, Division of Random House, Inc., First
Edition, hardcover, 251 pages, 1983)
"The Verdict Is In – "Science On Trial"
Is Acquitted –
The Evidence Can’t Stand Up In Court"
By Michael S. Shelton Stafford, VA
February 2000 (Revised March 7, 2000)
[Preface]
This partial book review of the original 1983 edition "Science On Trial:
The Case For Evolution," by Dr. Douglas J. Futuyma was launched as a result
of a challenge from an atheistic evolutionist on a debate forum found on the
"Digital City / Kansas City / Kansas City Issues" web site. The reader
may check the URL at:
home.digitalcity.com/kansascity/kc_issues/main.dci
This evolutionist cites "Science On Trial: The Case For Evolution"
by Dr. Futuyma (1995 Edition) as the single and complete authority that, (1)
there is no God, (2) evolution is truly the explanation for the origins of life,
and (3) that Futuyma has destroyed my argument that the Second Law of
Thermodynamics (SLOT) is the "Silver Bullet" against evolution. I
shall show in my review of Futuyma’s book that Futuyma is wrong. In fact, I
will expose the poor scholarship that Futuyma displays in his book, and that his
treatment of the SLOT is truly egregious.
The reader will note that I am an engineer by education and familiar with the
process of the Scientific Method. I am an evangelical Christian, with a personal
relationship with Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I believe in a literal
Heaven and a literal Hell, for Jesus spoke in detail about both. As for the
Creation Events shown in Genesis, I have not concluded if the Events occurred
over a six literal 24-hour day span (Young Universe Camp), or whether the Events
occurred over a very long period of time (Old Universe Camp). Convincing and
powerful arguments exist for both ideas. I tend to lean toward the Old Universe
Camp, but have tremendous respect for most of the orthodox scholarship and
writings from both the Old Universe and Young Universe camps. There are honest
disagreements between principled and godly people.
[Introduction]
As for my position that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLOT) is a clear
refutation of abiogenesis and purposeless descent of life forms, a die-hard
evolutionist and self-avowed atheist challenged me to read the book
"Science On Trial: The Case For Evolution" by Dr. Futuyma. The
particular edition cited is a 1995 update of the original book (noted earlier).
The evolutionist states:
"…..I have determined that the theory of evolution is the correct
explanation for the origin of life and what has followed……...The coup de
grace? A single book, by Dr. Douglas J. Futuyma called "Science on
Trail (sic): The Case for Evolution" (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland
MA, 1995). Futuyma not only clearly explains the theory, but takes on the
creationist arguments for Intelligent Design point by point, showing how all
of the creationist arguments fail."
My debate opponent, who admits that he has no scientific credentials,
continues,
"So, Mike, you want my response to your "silver bullet?"
Read chapter 10, and you will find it plain as day. You are, to quote Gary,
"wrongo wrongo wrongo wrongo wrongo." Your "silver
bullet" is just a tin plated paper weight."
He challenged me to also read Chapter 9 for more context.
I am limited to responding to the original 1983 Edition. However, if the 1995
Edition is similar to the 1983 version, then I won’t bother to look any
further. I would not waste good money on this book - it cannot be considered a
serious, reliable scientific reference. The book is a great disappointment in
scholarship, little more than a screedy diatribe, railing against us poor
Creationist schmucks who would dare think that Evolution is not good science. I
shall provide examples later. The book’s jacket contains the expected
platitudes from other evolutionary dignitaries (Asimov, Pilbeam, Leakey,
Lewontin). I read only the Preface, Chapter One "Reason Under Fire,"
Chapter Nine "Scientific Knowledge," Chapter Ten "Creationist
Arguments," Chapter Twelve "The Social Role for Evolution," the
Appendix "Some Creationist Arguments, and Some Appropriate Responses,"
and the Footnotes. I browsed much of the rest of book. For the sake of brevity I
will respond to only two topics in Chapter Ten (Thermodynamics (Argument #2) and
(Complexity / Natural Selection (combined arguments #3, #6 and #7)). All page
numbers cited are for the 1983 hardback edition (251 pages) of the book.
Futuyma states in the preface on page xi,
"Evolution has, by now, the status of fact. It is one of the
most important discoveries in science, and one of the most profound concepts
in Western thought; so it is sad irony that, a century after Darwin’s
death, the creationist movement is stronger than ever, carried forward by
the New Right’s rise to power." Later, Futuyma states, "….I
shall describe the evidence for evolution, explain how the evolutionary
process is thought to operate,…….I hope to show that the attack
on evolution is an attack on science in general; that to accept the
doctrine of creation rather than the evidence for evolution is to be guided
by wishful thinking rather than by reason and sober judgment…."
(all emphasis in italics added)
Futuyma continues on page xii,
"I do not expect to convert fundamentalist creationists to
belief in evolution. Fortified against logic and evidence by unquestioned
doctrine, they are not likely to be swayed. This book is addressed,
rather, to the reader who is open to evidence on matters of
scientific substance." (emphasis added)
[Analysis of Two Points]
Let’s pause here to consider two points: (1) Futuyma is inconsistent with
his use of the word "fact," and (2) he paints all Creationists with
the broad stereotypist’s smearbrush, branding Creationists as incapable of
"reason and sober judgment" and "fortified against
logic." (emphasis added)
Point (1): If a fact is a fact, don’t we know it? How can a
"fact" be "thought to operate?" Admittedly, it is held that
the ‘how’ of many phenomena or laws are impossible to describe (such as
gravity, electron orbits, or electromagnetic fields). Yet the ‘what’ and the
‘wherefore’ and the ‘when’ can be described in concrete physical
mathematical laws that are usually both elegant and simple. Gravity and
electromagnetic fields are two such clear examples. Regardless if a person
designs / builds a refrigerator or a missile, whether in the United States or in
Burma, the principles to build those devices will be exactly the same, but
perhaps executed with different styles. In Chapter Nine and (throughout the
book), Futuyma makes statements such as,
"good scientists never say they have found absolute
"truth"" (emphasis in the original),
"Scientists realize, if they have any sense at all, that all their
currently accepted beliefs are provisional,"
"Science emphasizes evidence and logical deduction, and is forever
uncertain,"
"nothing in science is ever proven in this sense. There are no
immutable facts. Every scientific claim is a hypothesis, however well
supported it may be."
Yet, he provides quotes from at least four people (Andrew D. White, James D.
Watson, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Richard C. Lewontin) that directly state or
infer that evolution (i.e., the origin of life from strictly material, natural
processes, and the subsequent descent of all life species) is a fact. So,
which is it? Do we have facts, or are we forever saddled with hypothesis /
theories only? Is it possible that earth’s gravity could possibly end
tomorrow? Is it possible that the next Mars probe will actually go straight to
the sun, not because of error, but because gravitational laws will have changed?
Is it possible that the alternator, which I recently replaced on my truck, will
next month stop obeying electromagnetic laws and cease its ability to provide
the electrical needs of the vehicle? Futuyma talks out of both sides of his
mouth – he wants his cake and to eat it too. But this is not unusual from an
evolutionist – I have seen abundant similar statements from other atheistic
evolutionists.
Point (2): Futuyma follows a familiar pattern of other atheistic
evolutionists that assume or boldly state that Creationists are all / primarily
from the "fundamentalists" camp. The term ‘fundamentalist’ is a
talk-down, sarcastically pejorative term used by atheists and liberal Christians
/ religious people to describe a sect of Christians who are very woodenly
literal and uncompromising in Biblical interpretation. Unfortunately, the
atheistic evolutionists label anyone who acknowledges that God is the Creator of
the Universe and The Designer and Builder of life as a
"Fundamentalist." Futuyma pours it on in his book. Examples abound –
in addition to the sanctimonious put-down goo-goo talk I have already cited in
his Preface, we read:
"And the fundamentalist assault is not limited to evolutionary
biology: physics, astronomy, geology, anthropology and psychology are all
under attack." (page 5 – he cites no examples to this blatantly
erroneous blast),
"The opponents of evolution who call themselves
"creationists" are, almost without exception, fundamentalist
Christians" (page 19),
"The opponents of evolution, then, are not the religious leaders who
understand Genesis to contain symbolic truth, but the fundamentalists who
are incapable of recognizing metaphor, and insist on interpreting Genesis
literally," and
"Their Biblical analysis is as absurd as are their scientific views;
they cannot admit metaphor, parable, or historical scholarship in their
reading of the Bible; for to admit that one passage should be read
metaphorically is to admit ambiguity in the whole, which would bring into
the doubt the passages that serve as authority for their uncompromising
moral and social positions." (page 20).
And those are samples just within the first 20 pages. I could go on – much
of Futuyma’s book is replete with combative language about Christians who
embrace Creation. For those of us who served honorably in the United States
military and obeyed the orders of our Congress and our Commander in Chief, even
to the point of combat wounds, such language from a distinguished biology
professor and science writer pains many of us. I fiercely defended the First
Amendment, and still do, and support the inalienable right of any atheist to his
position, but such inflammatory language by Futuyma only serves to cement the
notion that this book is not about science, but about the battle of philosophy /
worldviews.
Additionally, his scholarship, particularly about the Bible, is pathetically
woeful, which I shall point out shortly. Furthermore, Futuyma’s anti-Christian
rage would completely ignore the huge body of intelligent and dedicated
researchers in all fields (including biology and microbiology), from a variety
of Judeo-Christian faiths and denominations, who are deeply-committed
Creationists, based not just on religious or Christian convictions, but based on
their analysis of the evidence.
Christians pay taxes and operate with the same Constitutional Bill of Rights
as the atheistic scientist. As U.S. Citizens, Christian scientists have equal
rights to the public square of scientific debate and inquiry. If Creationism is
so devoid of merit and fact, then open inspection and public debate will bear
that out. If the preponderance of evidence for the evolution side is so great,
then what do the evolutionists have to worry about? Trying to keep the debate
out of the public schools and universities, to which all U.S. Citizens should
have equal access, only invites suspicions of the agenda of the atheistic
scientist. I say, teach both Creation and Evolution in the schools, and let the
student make an informed decision.
[Poor Biblical Scholarship]
On page 3 of Chapter One, after citing a couple of statements by St.
Augustine and St. Ambrose, Futuyma states,
"And so the fathers of the church established one of
the most powerful, beliefs in Christian civilization: the literal truth
of the Bible’s every word." (emphasis added)
Conveniently using unnamed sources on page 4, Futuyma goes on to say that the
creation story in the Bible was really fashioned after ancient Babylonian and
Chaldean myths, and that the story was written by four different authors. His
Biblical consultation obviously comes from liberal scholars. He mentions the two
"different" creation stories contained in Genesis chapters One and
Two. Of course, those two different stories are not contradictory at all. One is
a general chronology of the Six Days of Creation, whereas the "second"
story in Chapter Two is a recap and a more detailed description of some of the
details, including the Creation of man (both male and female) on the Sixth Day.
Further discussion of Scripture passages shows that Futuyma is ignorant of
Biblical study and the historical facts. For example, it is true that there were
multiple authors of original writings of various parts of Genesis historical
events, but the book was finally compiled by Moses during the 40-year period in
the Sinai desert following Israel’s escape from Egypt about 1400 BC. It is
most certain that Adam, Noah, Abraham, maybe even Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, and
others, kept journals of their lives and the significant events, and passed down
through both oral tradition and the written record. Moses, under the guidance of
the Holy Spirit compiled not only Genesis, but also most of the other four books
of the Pentateuch.
If Futuyma had bothered to do his homework (and it’s evident he did not),
he would have discovered that the Bible was written by approximately 40 authors
on three continents and in three languages, all over a span of approximately
1600 years or so, with an approximate 300-year gap between the last writings of
the OT Scriptures and the recording of the NT Scriptures. I will refute his
assertion that the early church fathers established the truth of the Bible and
show Futuyma’s egregious error.
[1] Jesus confirmed the accuracy and God-inspired OT Scriptures in verses
like Mark 7:10; Luke 5:14; and John 7:19,23. In John 5:45-47 (NASB), Jesus
said:
"Do not think that I will accuse you before
the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your
hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me.
But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My
words?"
It is clear that Jesus was appealing to these pre-New Testament Jews who
believed that the Book of the Law (i.e., the Books of Moses, the first five
books of the Bible) were inspired by God and spoke directly to God’s truth
for the Israelites. Jesus clearly says here that "Moses wrote"
about Him. The Jewish scribes who were tasked, indeed as full-time
occupations, with copying the Law and later books, took extreme pains to
ensure that copies were faithfully and accurately made. A study of the
Masoretic scribes of Tiberias, when compared to the important 1947 discovery
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, supports this. The scribes could tell if one
consonant was left out of the book of Isaiah, or even the entire Hebrew
Bible. Safeguards were so painfully built into their copying methodology
that they knew when they finished a manuscript, they had an exact copy.
[2] Jesus Himself held Scripture in very high regard. In the gospel of
Matthew Chapter 23, verses 34 and 35, we read,
"Therefore, behold, I am sending you
prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify,
and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from
city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous
blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of
Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and
the altar."
Zechariah was the son of Berechiah. This murder is recorded in II
Chronicles 24:20-22. Berechiah was the father of Zechariah, whereas the
famous Jehoiada was his grandfather. This is not the prophet Zechariah
(though his father was also named Berechiah) – this is a different
Zechariah. Since Abel’s death is recorded in Genesis, and since II
Chronicles is the last book in the Hebrew Bible, Christ was saying, in
effect, "from the first to the last murder in the Bible." I find
it significant that Jesus was saying to the Pharisees and Scribes that from
the first murder to the last murder in the OT (from the first book to the
last), the righteous blood spilled by Abel and Zechariah were going to be
counted as guilt against them. Implied, between the lines, could be the
blood of all the righteous men in between. Because the Pharisees were very
well-versed in the Law and the Prophets, they would have understood what
Jesus referred to, for they also held the Lord Yahweh’s word in high
regard. It is significant that Jesus thought these Scriptures to be accurate
and trustworthy. Why else would he refer to them?
[3] Jesus quoted / referred to Genesis 2:24 about the historicity of Adam
and Eve, and marriage (Matthew 19:5). Jesus noted Adam and Eve as real
historical figures in space and time.
[4] The "mythical tale" of manna and quail given to the ancient
Hebrews wandering around in the desert for 40 years, led by Moses, is one of
the biggest targets of skeptics and atheists. Yet Jesus referred directly to
these God-supplied foods in John 6:49.
[5] What about Jonah? Jonah is one of the most laughed-at and scorned
books of the Bible, but Jesus again makes due and high regard of OT
Scripture by referring to the three days that Jonah was in the belly of the
great fish (Matthew 12:40) as described in Jonah 1:17.
[6] Jesus Himself said that not one jot or tittle of the Law were going
to be changed (Matthew 5:18) until all was accomplished. I think here he was
referring to the Septuagint and its Greek lexicon. So, even though Jesus
knew that the Septuagint was a TRANSLATION, and we know it probably had
copyists errors, He still regarded it as extremely trustworthy, because He
had to have been thinking of the ORIGINAL autographa of the authors.
Inerrancy, as applied to the original autographs, was also implied here.
After all, Jesus wrote the OT. Jesus was THE WORD (John 1:1)
[7] Romans 10:13-18 (KJV) says:
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and
how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall
they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be
sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the
gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not
all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our
report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the
earth, and their words unto the ends of the world."
{Verse 17 from the New International Version (NIV) says, "faith
comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of
Christ"}. Here, the Apostle Paul is reinforcing that the Word is
reliable and trustworthy. Paul upholds both the preacher AND the Word of
God.
[8] King David, the second King of Israel, who ruled for 40 years
commencing about 1000 BC, states in Psalm 29:10,
"The LORD sat as King at the flood; Yes, the LORD sits as King
forever."
In this passage, the particular Hebrew word for ‘flood’ (mabbuwl)
is used only here and in Genesis Chapters 6 to 11. "Mabbuwl" is
the term that connotes a massive deluge, and refers directly to Noah’s
Flood, the Great Deluge that destroyed the world. "Mabbuwl" is
never used anywhere else in the Old Testament except this particular verse
in Psalm 29 and in the Genesis chapters of the Great Flood. This indicates
that David believed God’s Word to be literal and true about the Flood.
[9] The physician and author Luke records in Acts Chapter 17, verses
10-12, the event where Paul has been run out of the town of Thessalonica and
has established teaching about Christ in the town of Berea. Luke writes
these words,
"And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to
Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they
received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to
see whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, along
with a number of prominent Greek women and men." (NASB)
‘Prominent Greek men and women’ is significant here. In that area and
that age, the term ‘Greek’ was applied to the educated and upper crust
of society (both Jews and Gentiles, but primarily the Gentile race). They
spoke the Greek language and tended to be the movers and shakers in their
community. The fact that these people were already attending the synagogue
indicates they believed in the Jewish Scriptures. Paul’s preaching stirred
them to study those Scriptures (which would have been written in the
Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). They "examined
the Scriptures" daily. Bible manuscripts were not cheap and generally
not available to the poor layman except in the rare libraries. Thus, we see
that educated, critically-thinking "Greek’ people believed in Christ.
Belief in the Creation would naturally follow.
[10] The Apostle Peter wrote these words in II Peter 1:20-21 (NASB),
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a
matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an
act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
Just before that passage, he also wrote from the first-person experience
of actual witness these words in II Peter 1:15-16 (NASB),
"And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure
you may be able to call these things to mind. For we did not follow
cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty."
Thus, Futuyma deeply errs when he states that the early church fathers
"established" the truth of the Biblical word. Jesus, David, Paul,
Peter, and the Jewish scribes, among others, had already testified to that.
Certainly, the early church fathers validated the truth of the Bible. The
next time that Futuyma wants to comment on Biblical concepts, I would advise him
to pick up a commentary and actually read it, or call real Biblical Scholars for
proofing his manuscript.
Further analyzing his poor Biblical scholarship, on the topic of metaphoric
interpretation, Futuyma is vitriolic and demonizing of the Christian believer.
He does not cite any particular passage where he gets down to the nitty gritty,
although his references to the Flood and the Creation story are certainly
implied. If Creationists are incapable of metaphor, then perhaps he would like
to comment on how Christians (those terrible Fundamentalist-types) would handle
the following three verses:
"Like a slug melting away as it moves along, ………" (Psalm
58:8, NIV)
"But Jesus said unto him, "Follow me; and
let the dead bury their dead."" (Matthew 8:22, KJV)
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his
own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes,
and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26,
NASB)
The above verses, only three of many, are meant to be read as metaphoric in
context and not taken as literal. How can a dead man bury another dead man? How
does a slug melt? Futuyma is searching for nonexistent strawman arguments.
In summary, before I address the specific scientific points in Chapter Ten
that I mentioned earlier, I conclude that Futuyma’s book is little more than a
sarcastic, inflammatory, and insulting slam against good people of the Christian
Faith. Futuyma would like to demonize Christians within the framework quoted in
the infamous satirical "How the Bible was Prepared," By Philbert P.
LaPhlem (a.k.a., the famous J.P. Holding (Conan the Librarian) of Tektonic
Ministries),
"The Bible is a bad book. The people who read it are morons who
drool on their shoes, wear mismatched socks, can’t make up their minds on
anything, think that throat lozenges are gourmet food, and stare at cans of
frozen orange juice because they say "concentrate" on them. People
who like the Bible are called Christians, and there are three kinds: those
who can count and those who can’t…….." (for the reader, the rest
of this hilarious satirical rendition can be found at www.integrityonline15.com/jpholding/tekton.)
Futuyma would completely cast aside distinguished Christian / Bible-believing
men of science / engineering (some of whom I mentioned in my article "The
Hard-Boiled Skeptic" that can be found on the Errant Skeptics Research
Institute web site (www.errantkeptics.org)),
such as Pascal, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Faraday (London Baptist pastor and
discoverer of the electromagnetic principles I mentioned earlier), and even the
Father of our Modern Space Program and designer of the Saturn 5 launch vehicle
that took men to the moon six times, the late Werner von Braun. At Auburn
University, where I earned my BS in Aerospace Engineering in 1977, I had two
devoted Christian PhD professors in the Aerospace Department. One is a member of
the Technical Advisory Board for the Institute for Creation Research. The other
professor is highly respected in high-speed missile aerodynamics and is probably
among the top five to ten persons in the nation in theoretical computer modeling
for high-speed missile dynamics. To insinuate that those two distinguished men
are incapable of "…sober judgment…." And are "…..Fortified
against logic and evidence by unquestioned doctrine….." is simple insult.
[Scientific Refutations of Thermodynamics and Complexity]
Now I shall address the two specific Futuyma Chapter Ten areas I earlier
mentioned, Thermodynamics (Argument #2, pages 183-184, also page 223 of the
Appendix) and Complexity / Natural Selection (combined arguments #3, #6 and #7,
pages 184, 191-195). My evolutionist opponent claims that my "Silver
Bullet" analogy of the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been reduced to a
"tin plated paper weight." He is grossly erroneous and ignorant, and I
shall show why.
[Thermodynamics]
In the first paragraph of this section where he refers to Thermodynamics
(Argument #2), Futuyma briefly and correctly summarizes the First Law of
Thermodynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (FLOT and SLOT). The reader
will know that both FLOT and SLOT are at work in either closed or open systems.
SLOT simply states that processes in the global sense tend to flow in a manner
that is more random and / or more probable (entropy increases). In a closed
system, entropy continues to irrevocably increase until all energy / matter
conversion processes are exhausted (maximum entropy). For example, a sand castle
on the beach is an improbable event – it had to be built by a designer. Left
on its own and the effects of wind, storm and tide, the sand castle will again
become a random distribution of sand granules on the beach. Within a perfectly
sealed and impenetrable area of the beach (a completely uninhabited island would
suffice), a sand castle will never be built through completely random processes.
After summarizing FLOT and SLOT, Futuyma states,
"Creationists take these laws of physics to mean that organized
living systems could not have evolved from less organized matter, and that
complex organisms could not evolve from simpler ones."
The reader should note the irony here – for a PhD who repeatedly states
throughout his book that
"….there are no immutable facts…." and "… every
scientific claim is a hypothesis…."
or words to that effect, he nevertheless refers to FLOT and SLOT as
"laws." Yes, Futuyma correctly states the Creationists’ position,
whereas he would stick to mindless chance, given sufficient time and space.
Futuyma seems to subscribe to the philosophy, "Beginning with the
impersonal, everything, including man, must be explained in terms of the
impersonal plus time plus chance." {as Francis Schaeffer states in his book
‘He Is There And He Is Not Silent’ – MSS}. This is why Futuyma is adamant
in stating elsewhere in his book,
"Science is science only if it limits itself to determining the
nature of reality." (page 161)
By this, the atheist simply defines God / the Supernatural out of the
picture. Unfortunately, Christian apathy has allowed the secular humanist crowd
to get by with this. The ‘there is no science if God is allowed’ is now
deeply entrenched throughout all facets of our society – the schools, the
universities, the think tanks, government, and regrettably, in the great former
bastions of orthodox Christian training, such stalwart schools as Harvard, Yale,
Brown and Princeton. For a PhD who asserts that
"The best scientific education encourages skepticism, questioning,
independent thought, and the use of reason." (page 18),
Futuyma is simply guilty of the crass hypocrisy he labels against the
Creationists. Physician, heal thyself.
Futuyma quotes from the article ‘Scientific Creationism’ (P. Cloud, The
Humanist, January-February 1977), Cloud’s Creationist interpretation of SLOT,
"For the evolution of a more advanced organism, however, energy must
somehow be gained, order must be increased, and information added. The
Second Law says this will not happen in any natural process unless external
factors enter to make it happen."
I most strongly and vigorously agree with this quote, although the
"evolution" term clouds the issue – for example, cars don’t
evolve, they are designed and built using intelligent processes.
[Enter Severe Foot-In-Mouth Disease]
But then, Futuyma makes a fatal series of statements:
"But order arises from disorder all around us. A human body arises
from the relative formlessness of a fertilized egg; disordered water
molecules form ordered ice crystals in our refrigerators. The reason, of
course, is that neither an organism nor anything else except the universe as
a whole is a closed system {ah, another "fact" from the man who
says "….there are no immutable facts…." – MSS}: the earth
and its organisms are open systems that acquire energy from the sun to build
complexity from simple precursors. As Isaac Asimov has said, the creationist
argument from the second law is "an argument based on kindergarten
terms [that] is suitable only for kindergartens."
This paragraph is a complete misrepresentation of the Creationist position he
shows in the previous paragraph. It is smoke and mirrors and completely
disingenuous. Before I dissect this paragraph, let me quote the first two
sentences in his next paragraph: "Organisms are programmed by the
information in their DNA to synthesize complex molecules with the help of the
sun’s energy. The information changes by mutation, which if unopposed would
break down the order in a living system."
I shall now analyze some of the above Futuyma statements:
"But order arises from disorder all around us."
This is true. And how does it happen? In the case of complex processes,
only through an exchange of energy that also requires a code or
information (blueprints, dialogue, handshakes, DNA, etc.).
"A human body arises from the relative formlessness of a fertilized
egg; disordered water molecules form ordered ice crystals in our
refrigerators."
- The fertilized egg (embryo) is already a very complex organism (a human
being) with that being’s physical characteristics and demeanor already
defined by the DNA code. The DNA will instruct the embryo to develop over
the next nine months into a baby ready for birth and entry into the world
we know. Hair color, teeth strength, height and gender are already
programmed into the little critter. Information, plus outside energy (food
for Mom) will develop that human body.
- Ah, the old water freezes into ice story. This is another sorely abused
and smoke / mirrors example used by atheistic evolutionists. The reader
will please note that the water becomes more orderly when energy is lost,
not gained. Additionally, no information is needed to freeze water. An
intelligently-designed refrigerator or the North Pole will suffice.
Finally, ice cubes have not been known to teach school or build hospitals
or design neural networks.
"The reason, of course, is that neither an organism nor anything
else except the universe as a whole is a closed system: the earth and its
organisms are open systems that acquire energy from the sun to build
complexity from simple precursors."
- True, the Universe is closed. In fact, for illustration purposes, a good
case can be made that our solar system out to about a two or three
light-year radius will suffice to make it a closed system.
- The earth and "its organisms" can’t build diddly-squat
without a code. With a code but no sunlight, we can survive if we cleverly
utilize all the internal earth resources (oil, uranium, thermal sources,
etc.) until exhaustion. But we’re goners after that. With sunlight but
no code, nothing happens. One can pour all the sunlight wants into a warm
pond of exotic chemicals, but no life form will spontaneously form. Shine
warm sunlight all you want on fallen leaves – they merely dry out
sooner. Energy input is not the only ingredient – a plan is also needed
to decrease local entropy. Futuyma claims in his book that evolution is
testable and repeatable. This is one area that has been tested a zillion
times, and failed a zillion times. The world’s vaunted atheistic
evolutionary scientists have NEVER, I REPEAT NEVER, been able to
"randomly" generate a living organism from non-living matter.
(Sorry, amino acids don’t count) Scientists already know what an
organism looks like – they have largely mapped DNA and understand the
roles of RNA and proteins. But they can’t build life themselves (not
yet, at least). Futuyma, the late Asimov, the late Sagan, and others come
up with big goose eggs in this area. Nada. Zip.
"As Isaac Asimov has said, the creationist argument from the second
law is "an argument based on kindergarten terms [that] is suitable only
for kindergartens."
More put down, desperate talk from the former atheist Asimov who simply
never could prove evolution was true.
To wrap up the Thermodynamics topics (FLOT and SLOT), I refer the reader to
my other thermodynamic essays / commentary found on the Errant Skeptics Research
Institute web site (www.errantskeptics.org).
The reader will note that my evolutionist opponent has completely ignored my
exposures of his outrageous claims concerning theory, gravity, thermodynamics,
and the heliocentric model of our solar system. He has been unable to
technically and scientifically refute a single item of my treatise on SLOT. He
merely referred to Futuyma’s discussion in Chapter 10 as a torpedo in my
rowboat, but I have just finished showing what an egregious sham that Futuyma
made of the topic. I would also refer the reader to the very excellent response
of Timothy Wallace ("Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism" found at www.trueorigin.org)
to Frank Steiger’s article ("The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution,
and Probability," Copyright © 1995-1997 by Frank Steiger found at www.talkorigins.org).
Wallace even quotes the scientist and distinguished Isaac Asimov:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is
constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the
second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left
to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we
never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain
houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to
let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything
deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that
is what the second law is all about." [Smithsonian Institute Journal,
June 1970, p. 6]
Wallace continues later in his treatise:
"Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law
is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that
things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization,
while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place
since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning)."
"Beginning with the "Big Bang" and the self-formation and
expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every
structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and
beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly
process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct
contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law."
"This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the
evolutionists’ speculations concerning biological life and it’s origin.
The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the
midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a
particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place,
producing the first self-replicating molecule."
"Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said
to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and
organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and
suitably matched molecular "community members" which formed what
we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex
of integrated machinery called the cell."
"Not only did this alleged remarkable random act of self-transformation
take place in defiance of the second law, but the environment in which it
happened, while itself presumably cooperating with the second law’s demand
for increased disorder and break-down, managed (by some further unknown
random mechanism) to leave untouched the entire biological self-assembly
process and the self-gathered material resources from which the first living
organism built itself."
"Perhaps the reader should be reminded (or informed) at this point that
not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described
self-creation myth. Yet very ironically, it’s the only origins
account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the
public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular
beliefs."
"But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause
reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or
"build-up" rather than "break-down"). Raw solar energy
alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up
the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization
on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or
a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of
solar radiation)."
"Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed
and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a
creationist) affirms:
"...there are no known violations of the second law of
thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed]
systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there
is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the
notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is
important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself."
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and
Engineering News, July 27, 1980, p. 40]"
"So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s
biosphere, appearing to "violate" the second law of
thermodynamics?"
"The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in
entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors
besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1. a "program" (information) to direct the growth in organized
complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy."
Bingo.
[Complexity / Natural Selection]
For brevity in an already long-winded response, I will simply summarize what
Futuyma says in these three sections (combined arguments #3, #6 and #7); that
is, complex organisms could have simply occurred sometime in the past; that the
very first RNA sequences could have been any combination, then replicated
themselves and evolved through natural selection into DNA, then into man; that
the human eye evolved from the earliest "light sensitive" spots in an
organism, and so on. No evidence is given, not one shred of peer reviewed
scientific study I know of shows this. Merely, this just HAD to have happened.
After all, here we are. Timothy Wallace very thoroughly addressed these areas in
the material immediately above. Going further,
Let’s talk about sequences – take the following 16-digit number:
0000000000000001
Now, let’s rearrange the 16 digits:
0010000000000000
The reader will note that we still have exactly the same digits, but the
digits are now significantly different in arrangement (sequence). The first
number is simply "1," whereas the second number could be either 10
trillion (10E12), or it could represent the binary number for 65,536 in
hexadecimal format. The sequence is quite important to an Intelligent Agent. A
crow or a cat or a moose that walks by would not see anything significant about
these numbers, but a human would. It takes an Intelligent Agent to recognize the
numbers.
Similarly, flipping a coin 50 billion times and looking for the number of
events that one has 100 consecutive heads would be interesting only to an
Intelligent Agent. Chimpanzees and fruit flies would not qualify as Intelligent
Agents. However, flipping a coin 50 billion times is merely an interesting
mental exercise in probabilities. This exercise would have nothing to say about
the DNA gene sequences needed to program black hair and dark skin to a native
Hawaiian.
Let’s take some words and rearrange / substitute letters in the alphabet:
beer / mere
cat / bat
watch / catch
couch / ouch
nurse / purse
water / later
mesa / same
provide / proviso
establish / setablish (misspelled "establish," which is an
error, a mutation, if you will)
As one can see, with very minor letter changes or change of sequences, we
often change the entire meaning of the new word, which has absolutely zero
relation with the former word. It is said that the DNA of chimpanzees is about
98% common with humans, yet humans and chimps are orders of magnitude apart in
complexity, intelligence, technical capabilities, etc. Ever seen a chimp shoot a
CAT III approach to LA Airport in a B747? Anyone ever see a chimp perform
open-heart surgery? Thus, genetic sequences and any possible commonality are
utterly meaningless except to the Higher Design mechanism involved. The atheist
would adamantly opine that impersonal time plus chance plus mutations built all
the DNA codes for all currently existing life forms, including those cute little
chimps. Additionally, evolutionists have yet to establish conclusive PROOF that
chimps and humans have come from a common ancestor. Futuyma cannot point to a
specific historical event where he could conclusively point the branching event
where the modern human became a new species from its different ancestor. It is
mere speculation, wishful thinking, and faith.
[A Matter of Sight]
Let’s further explore the relationship of complexity and natural selection.
Michael Behe, the microbiologist professor at Lehigh University and author of
"Darwin’s Black Box," makes the very clear case that organisms are
irreducibly complex. A foot has no function unless it is attached to a mobile
and ambulatory leg that functions on an animal. A mousetrap will not work if the
spring is missing. The eye will not work (or work properly) unless all of its
elements are in place and cooperating with the brain. How does the evolutionist
prove that the cornea needed the retina? How does the evolutionist prove that
optic nerve had need of a blood supply to keep it nourished? The lens’ need
for an iris to change the focal length? How did it know? If natural selection is
completely unguided and has no goal, how so and how long for the eye to develop?
Michael Behe describes how the eye "sees" (this gets very deep and
technical), an excerpt from ("Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for
the Design Inference." This paper was originally presented in the Summer of
1994 at the meeting of the C.S. Lewis Society, Cambridge University):
The Eyesight of Man
"In general, biological processes on the molecular level are
performed by networks of proteins, each member of which carries out a
particular task in a chain.
"Let us return to the question, how do we see? Although to Darwin
the primary event of vision was a black box, through the efforts of many
biochemists an answer to the question of sight is at hand.4 When
light strikes the retina a photon is absorbed by an organic molecule called
11cis retinal, causing it to rearrange within picoseconds to trans retinal.
The change in shape of retinal forces a corresponding change in shape of the
protein, rhodopsin, to which it is tightly bound. As a consequence of the
protein’s metamorphosis, the behavior of the protein changes in a very
specific way. The altered protein can now interact with another protein
called transducin. Before associating with rhodopsin, transducin is tightly
bound to a small organic molecule called GDP, but when it binds to rhodopsin
the GDP dissociates itself from transducin and a molecule called GTP, which
is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP, binds to
transducin.
4 {Behe’s Reference 4 is: Devlin, Thomas M. (1992) Textbook of
Biochemistry, pp. 938-954, Wiley Liss, New York.}
"The exchange of GTP for GDP in the transducinrhodopsin complex
alters its behavior. GTP transducinrhodopsin binds to a protein called
phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When bound by
rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to
chemically cleave a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP
molecules in the cell, but the action of the phosphodiesterase lowers the
concentration of cGMP. Activating the phosphodiesterase can be likened to
pulling the plug in a bathtub, lowering the level of water.
"A second membrane protein which binds cGMP, called an ion channel,
can be thought of as a special gateway regulating the number of sodium ions
in the cell. The ion channel normally allows sodium ions to flow into the
cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual
action of the ion channel and pump proteins keeps the level of sodium ions
in the cell within a narrow range. When the concentration of cGMP is reduced
from its normal value through cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, many
channels close, resulting in a reduced cellular concentration of positively
charged sodium ions. This causes an imbalance of charges across the cell
membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic
nerve to the brain: the result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
"If the biochemistry of vision were limited to the reactions listed
above, the cell would quickly deplete its supply of 11cis retinal and cGMP
while also becoming depleted of sodium ions. Thus a system is required to
limit the signal that is generated and restore the cell to its original
state; there are several mechanisms which do this. Normally, in the dark,
the ion channel, in addition to sodium ions, also allows calcium ions to
enter the cell; calcium is pumped back out by a different protein in order
to maintain a constant intracellular calcium concentration. However, when
cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel and decreasing the sodium
ion concentration, calcium ion concentration is also decreased. The
phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, is greatly slowed down at
lower calcium concentration. Additionally, a protein called guanylate
cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall.
Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically
modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase, which places a phosphate
group on its substrate. The modified rhodopsin is then bound by a protein
dubbed arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from further activating
transducin. Thus the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal
started by a single photon.
"Trans retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin molecule and
must be reconverted to 11cis retinal and again bound by opsin to regenerate
rhodopsin for another visual cycle. To accomplish this trans retinal is
first chemically modified by an enzyme to transretinol, a form containing
two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then isomerizes the molecule to
11cis retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen
atoms to form 11cis retinal, and the cycle is complete."
Futuyma needs to show that the above known operation of our sight mechanism
evolved from purely materialistic processes, purposeless, unguided, and with no
goal. While he’s at it, perhaps Futuyma can also explain the evolutionary
processes that allow blood clotting, speech, facial recognition of friends and
enemies, catching a fly ball, and the digestion of a wide range of foods (such
as burritos, fried rice, refried beans, nachos, and fried ice cream in the same
sitting, all washed down with beer and a coffee chaser). I mean, fair is fair.
As the good Dr. Futuyma would say, "The best scientific education
encourages skepticism, questioning, independent thought, and the use of
reason."
I am skeptical, I am questioning, I am using independent thought, and I am
using the power of reason.
Finally, Futuyma displays, at the minimum, an honest crack in his armor when
he leaves open the question of complexity by addressing evolution and creation
as likely explaining all things of origin between the two philosophies. In the
first paragraph of Chapter Eleven, page 197, he states:
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible
explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on
the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have
developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they
did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by
some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form
inanimate molecules into an elephant or redwood tree in one step….."
Of course, he does not believe the case for Creation is better than the case
for Evolution, but at least he does share some honest moments. However, it would
be great if both sides of the issue would allow open and honest discussion
within the great halls of academia, public schools, government, and the media.
[Conclusion – Futuyma is Proven Innocent of Trying to Write a Book of
Science]
To conclude, I have shown that my evolutionist opponent’s assertion that
Futuyma has turned my silver bullet against evolution into a "tin plated
paper weight" is just so much hot-air pontification. My opponent does not
possess the engineering and scientific acumen to truly discern the finer points
of the thermodynamics (FLOT) and (SLOT) debate. (I have similar misgivings about
Futuyma, in fact).
My evolutionist opponent is an atheist. He hates God, does not believe that
God exists anyway, and thus must resort to parroting the evolutionists’ party
line that we exist from pure chance. I have conclusively shown that Dr. Douglas
Futuyma, despite his impressive credentials and stature as distinguished
professor and science author, is little more than an anti-God sycophant,
chanting the mantra of secular humanist reasoning and scientific materialism. It’s
a matter of faith. Yours versus mine. It’s one religion (secular humanism)
against the proven fact of a historical risen Savior who also is the Creator of
the Universe.
|