Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Evolution and Scrupulous Scholarship
Trouble for Evolution
Paul R. Gross, emeritus professor of Life Sciences at the University of Virginia, published an Op-Ed piece in Science and Theology News, October 2005, p5. He was giving a counter-point to Charles F. Austerberry of Creighton University who claims evolution can be taught with religious neutrality.
Gross rejects Austerberry’s proposal, because science, he says, is based on particular epistemic standards. He lists those standards as: evidence, peer review, open communication, repetition of observations, isolation of variables, avoidance of bias, and scrupulous scholarship. This set of standards, he claims, transcends culture.
Gross recognizes that the current conflict between creationism and evolutionary biology is not about the tone of classroom teaching but is about the content of evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, Gross maintains that under the superior epistemic standards outlined above, no one had found any evidence for supernatural intervention in the history of life. Science cannot disprove it, but there is no evidence for it, and science is all about evidence, he says.
Failing to produce positive evidence for “agency” of any kind, creationists fall back to the traditional “slander” of evolution, he says. This defames all biology since evolution is the central organizing principle of biology.
Gross feels confident that he has revealed the propaganda that is being used to attack science itself. “Intelligent Design” is simply a Trojan horse, he says. Gross has produced a book that tries to prove this point from a review of the literature.
While we should respect the life and career of Professor Gross, he loses his case before he begins. He believes (as do many others) that the organizing principle of biology is that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter and developed by gradual random changes, some of which were well suited to the environment (and thus survived) while most other changes were random and thus not significantly advantageous, leading to decline if not extinction of the species. It seems to me that a better organizing principle would be that life comes from life and develops according to the complex, effective, encoded information resident in the genetic core of the cells of all living beings. Within natural limits, life is adaptable to changing environments according to the variability afforded by those same genetic blueprints.
Science, says Gross, is about evidence. The epistemic principles that he sets forth require repetition of observations and experiments. Science must avoid bias and be scrupulous in scholarship. These are exactly the points where evolutionary theories fail. Biology would be well served if it would organize itself around my other suggested principle, one that is not so obviously lacking in evidence.
The notion of a naturalistic origin of life is little more than mere bias. There is no evidence at all that life comes from non-life. There is no single experiment, much less a repeated one, that produces life from non-life. There is no observation of life arising from non-life. If biologists were scrupulous and un-biased, they would say, “We do not know how life began. We have found no evidence for a natural origin of life from non-life. Some say God created life, others still look for a natural origin, but our best evidence says that life always comes from life.” A strictly naturalistic origin for life seems very unlikely. Why not speak the truth?
They might also truthfully say, “We do not know how the species arose or came to be. The fossil evidence shows that populations of animals and plants have changed over time, but there is little evidence that indicates that one kind of animal changed into another kind of animal. The fossils show that distinct populations existed in the past, just as they do today. The genetic code seems to be a system of information for building the bodies and life patterns of each kind of life. This information is complex even in its smallest and oldest forms. Some believe that information arose from non-information, but we have no evidence to confirm that. We know of no way adequately to explain how personality could arise from the non-personal. We cannot explain how reason could arise from the non-rational. Science cannot prove whether or not there is an existing biblical God, but all of the evidence shows that reason comes from reason, that personality comes from personality, and that life comes from life.”
Such a statement would show lack of bias. This would show scrupulous scholarship. This would allow biology to be studied in its most productive format.
Unfortunately, the biology Professor Gross wants to promote does not admit that there might be environmental and ecological explanations for fossil collections. It does not admit that there are natural limits to biological change. It does not admit that there is any such thing as irreducible complexity in biological systems. Modern biology has much evidence for reproduction according to kinds. It has much evidence for the intricacies of biological systems and the inter-connectedness of life across the whole earth (a creationist tenant).
Biology is a wonderful study for young and old alike. It reveals the special nature of human life while at the same time showing how we survive in the same environment as the rest of the living creatures on earth. It seems that the evidence points to a unique pattern for life. That is what the evidence really shows, if it is looked at without bias and with scrupulous scholarship.
lrb
Paul R. Gross, emeritus professor of Life Sciences at the University of Virginia, published an Op-Ed piece in Science and Theology News, October 2005, p5. He was giving a counter-point to Charles F. Austerberry of Creighton University who claims evolution can be taught with religious neutrality.
Gross rejects Austerberry’s proposal, because science, he says, is based on particular epistemic standards. He lists those standards as: evidence, peer review, open communication, repetition of observations, isolation of variables, avoidance of bias, and scrupulous scholarship. This set of standards, he claims, transcends culture.
Gross recognizes that the current conflict between creationism and evolutionary biology is not about the tone of classroom teaching but is about the content of evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, Gross maintains that under the superior epistemic standards outlined above, no one had found any evidence for supernatural intervention in the history of life. Science cannot disprove it, but there is no evidence for it, and science is all about evidence, he says.
Failing to produce positive evidence for “agency” of any kind, creationists fall back to the traditional “slander” of evolution, he says. This defames all biology since evolution is the central organizing principle of biology.
Gross feels confident that he has revealed the propaganda that is being used to attack science itself. “Intelligent Design” is simply a Trojan horse, he says. Gross has produced a book that tries to prove this point from a review of the literature.
While we should respect the life and career of Professor Gross, he loses his case before he begins. He believes (as do many others) that the organizing principle of biology is that life arose spontaneously from non-living matter and developed by gradual random changes, some of which were well suited to the environment (and thus survived) while most other changes were random and thus not significantly advantageous, leading to decline if not extinction of the species. It seems to me that a better organizing principle would be that life comes from life and develops according to the complex, effective, encoded information resident in the genetic core of the cells of all living beings. Within natural limits, life is adaptable to changing environments according to the variability afforded by those same genetic blueprints.
Science, says Gross, is about evidence. The epistemic principles that he sets forth require repetition of observations and experiments. Science must avoid bias and be scrupulous in scholarship. These are exactly the points where evolutionary theories fail. Biology would be well served if it would organize itself around my other suggested principle, one that is not so obviously lacking in evidence.
The notion of a naturalistic origin of life is little more than mere bias. There is no evidence at all that life comes from non-life. There is no single experiment, much less a repeated one, that produces life from non-life. There is no observation of life arising from non-life. If biologists were scrupulous and un-biased, they would say, “We do not know how life began. We have found no evidence for a natural origin of life from non-life. Some say God created life, others still look for a natural origin, but our best evidence says that life always comes from life.” A strictly naturalistic origin for life seems very unlikely. Why not speak the truth?
They might also truthfully say, “We do not know how the species arose or came to be. The fossil evidence shows that populations of animals and plants have changed over time, but there is little evidence that indicates that one kind of animal changed into another kind of animal. The fossils show that distinct populations existed in the past, just as they do today. The genetic code seems to be a system of information for building the bodies and life patterns of each kind of life. This information is complex even in its smallest and oldest forms. Some believe that information arose from non-information, but we have no evidence to confirm that. We know of no way adequately to explain how personality could arise from the non-personal. We cannot explain how reason could arise from the non-rational. Science cannot prove whether or not there is an existing biblical God, but all of the evidence shows that reason comes from reason, that personality comes from personality, and that life comes from life.”
Such a statement would show lack of bias. This would show scrupulous scholarship. This would allow biology to be studied in its most productive format.
Unfortunately, the biology Professor Gross wants to promote does not admit that there might be environmental and ecological explanations for fossil collections. It does not admit that there are natural limits to biological change. It does not admit that there is any such thing as irreducible complexity in biological systems. Modern biology has much evidence for reproduction according to kinds. It has much evidence for the intricacies of biological systems and the inter-connectedness of life across the whole earth (a creationist tenant).
Biology is a wonderful study for young and old alike. It reveals the special nature of human life while at the same time showing how we survive in the same environment as the rest of the living creatures on earth. It seems that the evidence points to a unique pattern for life. That is what the evidence really shows, if it is looked at without bias and with scrupulous scholarship.
lrb
