Chemist Provides Explanation for Early Life, Without the Need for Intelligent Design May 14, 2009

In a paper to be published on Thursday in Nature, Dr. John D. Sutherland solved a puzzle about the origin of RNA, which is necessary for life.  Dr. Sutherland was able to combine the constituent parts of RNA, thus demonstrating that these structures could arise naturally.   The New York Times discusses it here.

 

This discovery is important for several reasons.  First, it solves a major question in chemistry and will likely provide the basis for valuable future research.  Second, it is yet another piece of evidence indicating that natural processes can give rise to life.  Much to the dismay of the creationist intelligent design crowd, a process that was previously thought a “miracle,” and hence thought to be impossible through laws of nature, was recreated using these very laws of nature and only those organic substances that we have here on Earth.  The foundation of the intelligent design argument is essentially that there are processes in life that are too difficult for us to understand which cannot have occurred naturally, so the only other possible explanation is that a supernatural being caused them.  Dr. Sutherland’s research demonstrates that while we may not be able to explain certain things about our universe, we should not stop trying.

Chert of the Marin Headlands April 29, 2009

 

Radiolarian Chert in the Marin Headlands

On a recent trip to the Marin Headlands, I had the wonderful opportunity to see radiolarian chert up close.  Radiolarian chert is rock that was formed around 200 million years ago from the skeletons of microscopic organisms called radiolaria.  The radiolaria died and fell to the bottom of the ocean floor, where their skeletons piled up.  The particular radiolaria that ended up in the Marin Headlands died near the equator, as evidenced by the fact that they are very similar to present day equatorial radiolaria. 

 

At around the same time as this trip, I came across a website apparently created by Creation Ministries International, a young Earth organization that seeks to undermine evolution.  I was interested to see that one of their webpages dealt with radiolarian chert.  In it, the author uses radiolarian chert to attack the geologic concept of uniformtarianism all the while seeking to explain the presence of radiolarian chert by pointing to the great biblical flood.  Essentially, the author argues that we must accept the flood as the explanation for the development of radiolarian chert because radiolarian chert is not being formed in the present at the levels it was in the past. 

 

Uniformitarianism states that the same natural processes that have shaped the world in the past continue to so shape the world.  Existing processes acting in the same manner and with the same intensity will produce the same results.  This is all about the processes.  And the processes that created the radiolarian chert in the headlands also created all sedimentary rocks in the world.  The concept of uniformitarianism isn’t put into question simply because radiolaria aren’t present today in the same quantities that were necessary to produce the chert that we can see today.  That’s not a process.  That’s a volume of biological organism.  If it makes sense for the creationists out there, it’s the same as saying, “Jesus isn’t alive today, so we can’t explain our lives through the teachings of Jesus today.” 

 

San Francisco from the Marin Headlands

The flood could not have produced the radiolarian chert.  It is basic geologic knowledge (and basic logic) that fast running water will carry all but the large rocks and heavy pebbles away in its rush.  Alternatively, stiller water will allow fine sediments to settle on the water bed.  The flood would have been fast running water which would not have supported fine sediment deposition. 

 

Additionally, the radiolarian chert formed between 100 million and 200 million years ago.  It took a long time for the radiolaria skeletons to settle and form into rock.  The flood story does not support such a timeframe.  In fact, in the flood story, humans were supposedly washed away, with the exception of Noah and his ark.  Yet, humans weren’t around on earth until only about 4.1 million years ago.  The flood story just doesn’t fit into the timeline. 

 

If you’re ever in the Marin Headlands area, I highly suggest visiting these chert outcroppings.  They are a marvel of our natural world.  

Another Evolutionary “Missing Link” Found April 25, 2009

A new study from the journal Nature concludes that a fossil found in 2007 is a “missing link” between former land-based animals and current seals and other pinnipeds.  The animal, named Puijila darwini, had longer legs, more reminiscent of those of land mammals, yet also had webbed feet.  The animal existed about twenty to twenty-four million years ago.  The study suggests that the animal lived in freshwater lakes, but turned to the oceans after the lakes froze over.

This find is yet another piece of the evolutionary puzzle that plugs a gap between land and water based animals that creationists tend to over-emphasize as a means to diminish evolution.  Yet, this find demonstrates the beauty of a scientific theory in action.  A “theory” in science is not the same as a “theory” in common linguistic usage.  In science, a theory is a logical explanation of a group of observed phenomena which essentially explains our world.  When a hypothesis rises to the level of a theory, it can be routinely used to predict what we should find if we encounter new evidence.  With  evolution, we can use that theory to predict just how a “missing link” should look.  And that’s precisely what happened with this newly found fossil.

Scientific Skepticism September 1, 2008

The power of science lies in its rigorous skepticism; the requirements of evidence and independent review. Scientists label ideas as hypotheses before they are tested and theories after they have been repeatedly tested. Unfortunately, those who attack science latch onto the descriptions of ideas as theories and impose on that word a general, rather than a scientific, definition. They decry the theory of evolution and in so doing, they cast doubt over all evidence for evolution. Yet, a scientific theory is an idea that explains natural phenomena and can predict future occurrences while being tested and re-tested repeatedly and independently. Thus, in science a theory is not a guess… or a belief. It is something that has been observed, tested, and which can be relied upon to predict future behavior.

That is science’s great power, and it relies on evidence. If someone does not agree with the conclusions, then that person is encouraged to challenge the hypothesis by identifying new evidence and allowing that evidence to be subjected to independent testing by others. This is precisely what differentiates the discovery of truth through science from mere pronouncements of “truth” from people in positions of political and religious power.

On August 12, 2008, the New York Times published an op-ed listing reasons why teaching evolution in schools is beneficial. One of the reasons concerned the benefits of scientific skepticism. The author pointed out that a “contempt” for evidence in the Bush Administration has led to public policies based on ideology rather than science. The result, of course, is a more powerful executive/government, which can merely dictate without the difficulty of reconciliation with evidence. I’m not implying that Bush is a dictator. But when scientific skepticism and a healthy demand of evidence are ignored, the slope becomes slippery and those in power strengthen their grip over the people.

It’s Not Looking Good for Palin and Science August 30, 2008

With Sen. McCain’s choice of Gov. Palin of Alaska as his running mate for the 2008 presidential election, American voters are facing a candidate who seems to neither understand the importance of keeping politics out of scientific decisions nor the need to teach basic science to our children. First, Palin opposes listing the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. She supported committing Alaska’s financial resources to suing the federal government for listing the polar bear as threatened because she claimed a state report found no evidence that the bear was endangered. She refused to release the report to the public so that it’s conclusions could be properly scrutinized, thus shielding the government from the electorate and masking governmental decisions—her decisions—from accountability. This occurred even when the head of the marine mammals division of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game stated in an internal email (joined by two other state scientists) that federal evidence supporting the listing was sound. Of course, that would have blocked oil drilling in areas of the arctic populated by polar bears. And it probably goes without saying that Palin is a huge supporter of drilling in sensitive areas.

Second, Palin’s failure to understand the ramifications of teaching evolution versus creationism in our public schools demonstrates her failure to grasp the importance of science to our well-being and the health of our planet. There are certain rules that govern the way our world works and by understanding those rules and making and testing hypotheses about aspects of the universe which are mysterious to us, we progress in our knowledge of nature. However, when supposed biblical truths are the foundation of our perspective of the universe, we close off a powerful tool for discovering and understanding the natural world. To effectively cope with real problems here on earth, such as global warming, disease, and pollution, we must be able to trust and accept the information gained through a rigorous method of testing and retesting our assumptions. The scientific method belongs in our schools and public policy decisions should be based on independent science.

A Little On Our Evolutionary Development August 24, 2008

I recently read Neil Shubin’s Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body and am awed by the evolutionary process that led to today’s humans. Shubin discovered a fossil of Tiktaalik, a fish/land animal that possessed eyes on the top of its head, a neck, and elbows and wrists in its fins, and is a link between aquatic and terrestrial creatures. The book describes how humans and other animals are related in the very early development stages as well as later in life. Shubin describes how our bodies, as embryos, resemble every other mammal, and are complete with gill folds. In developing humans, each gill fold is connected to specific portions of the nervous and cardiovascular systems and organs in the body. Also, scientists have located a specific section of developing organisms that contains cells specified to assist in creating certain appendages. The most spectacular aspect of this discovery is that it crosses species. These cells can be taken from one species and incorporated into the cells of an organism of a different developing species and the cells will help to produce body parts that are correct for the host organism.

After describing how organisms evolved to have bodies and how every species shares a commonality of body development, the book is organized into chapters based on things like smell, sight, and hearing, and the chapters describe how humans evolved these particular abilities. These chapters are interesting and well worth the read, but I found the most exciting part of the book to be the description of how our bodies are far from intelligently designed. We come from fish, and our fishy vestiges remain. Shubin describes how maladies as various as choking, velicose veins, and hernias arise in humans because of our aquatic history.

Overall, Your Inner Fish is a satisfying and quite approachable read, and I recommend it to everyone.

“Intelligent Design” Is Not Science February 21, 2008

Scientific American is reporting that Ben Stein, best known for his portrayal of the deadpan, mindless teacher from “Ferris Beuller’s Day Off,” is being awarded something called the “Award for Liberty and Truth” by a Christian university for his “documentary” about so-called intelligent design. In it, apparently, Stein bemoans the fact that actual scientists are quite dismissive of the belief in intelligent design. Stein states, “Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science.”

What Stein fails to understand is that one cannot follow the evidence if one has no evidence in the first place. The scientific method requires, in the best scenario, repeated testing of hypotheses capable of being proven or disproven, but, at the very least, capable of being repeated independently under identical conditions. When one states one’s belief that God created organisms that are “irreducibly complex” (a term de rigeur in the so-called intelligent design crowd), one cannot prove or disprove such a claim (and one certainly lacks any ability to independently test such a claim). It cannot be tested through the scientific method and is, therefore, not science, or even anything close. The bottom line: the belief in intelligent design is a belief and beliefs are not science.