Undeception

From Missing Link: Scientists In New York Unveil Fossil Of Lemur Monkey Hailed As Man’s Earliest Ancestor from Sky News:

Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey hailed as the missing link in human evolution.

This 95%-complete ‘lemur monkey’ is described as the “eighth wonder of the world”

The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years – but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.

The discovery of the 95%-complete ‘lemur monkey’ – dubbed Ida – is described by experts as the “eighth wonder of the world”.

They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be “somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth”.

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.

Sir David Attenborough said Darwin “would have been thrilled” to have seen the fossil – and says it tells us who we are and where we came from.

I’m sure this will be a hot discussion topic in the blogosphere.  But I have a few reservations, specifically about how this thing is being presented.

Were we really just missing one piece that would single-handedly prove the theory of evolution (at one point, the article’s author calls it the “final piece of Darwin’s jigsaw”)?  I’m sure it will be incredibly valuable for science, and it’s wonderful that it’s yet another prediction fulfilled for Darwin’s theory, but it seems to me that heralding this as the Proof of Evolution 1) trivializes too much perfectly good evidence already extant in favor of common descent and 2) overstates what science can and can’t do — namely, definitively “confirm” anything.  Most scientists I am familiar with never make such extraordinary claims, so I think this kind of talk within that article is probably mostly due to sensationalist, and badly informed,  journalism.  For instance, the title – “man’s earliest ancestor”?  Um…no…that would be a single-celled organism hundreds and hundreds of millions of years before Ida.

One thing’s for sure — even if the academic community accepts Ida for what Attenborough and the others in this article claim it to be, it won’t be convincing anyone who’s already decided for religious reasons s/he doesn’t want to be descended from primates.  But here’s hoping lots of interesting and useful information does arise from what definitely appears to be an important missing link in our ancestry.

————————————————

[UPDATE: I found a much more scientific and measured description of this same fossil and its importance.  Check out this article from UPI and compare.]

Okay, okay. Don’t read this if it annoys you when I call out Gary DeMar on his incessant Campaign for Idiocy. I questioned whether I should even bother writing this, but then I decided that as long as he keeps making these ridiculous arguments and has an audience willing to snatch up whatever scraps he gives them, I will not feel it amiss to call him on it.

His May 1st podcast was entitled, “Swine Flu is an Effective Evolutionary Extermination Plan”. Yeah, you can see where he’s going here.

He begins by sarcastically wondering aloud why his archenemies, those he has identified as leaders of “modern day humanistic thought” (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.), have not been out there publicly cheering on the swine flu, hoping that it kills as many of “the weak” as possible. In an attempt to “answer his fool by his own folly” (Proverbs 26:5 – has he happened to read Proverbs 26:4?), he goes on his own sarcastic rant in favor of a world-wide swine flu epidemic:

I mean look, if you can’t take [the] disease, then there’s no reason why you ought to be reproducing. I mean, this is a way to really cull the gene pool; this is a way to get rid of the weak links in the evolutionary chain. So once again, I think we should embrace the swine flu. We should let it ravage the earth to get rid of the weakest elements and then we are left with the strongest elements.

Of course, affirming that evolution has taken place and is a natural process that is still ongoing no more requires taking active measures to perpetuate evolutionary selection (besides, this is not natural but artificial selection) than describing the atrocities of Hitler makes you a supporter and proponent of such atrocities. Come on, Gary — read one or two of your bookstore’s books on logical fallacies, why don’t you?

Now, lest you think he’s just targeting the new atheists who are actively proselytizing for infidelity, let me assure you that he really, truly believes that one does not argue that evolution occurred without implicitly or explicitly advocating genocide and the horrors of eugenics. He almost never even acknowledges that evolution is something accepted by Christians as well as by non-Christians. In fact, the biggest thing that drives me batty about DeMar and makes him dangerous to the Church’s influence in the world is his tireless insistence upon conflating the acceptance of evolutionary theory — the notion that evolutionary processes explain the current state of nature — and the dogmatic philosophy of atheistic materialism of the new atheists. Here’s a few quotes from his five-minute rant that show he countenances no harmless variety of evolutionary theory.

“So again, we as Christians need to get out there and play the sarcastic role, but force unbelievers, force humanistic ideology to live consistently with its operating assumptions. I would like to hear from the evolutionists.” [humanistic ideology = the evolutionists (= unbelievers?)]

“They’re not being consistent with the evolutionary theories that they’re teaching in the public schools across the country.” [Shame on you if you advocate teaching the current scientific consensus in a school setting, despite the fact that nowhere is it being done in a way that actively encourages atheism/materialism.]

“So there is a great deal of inconsistency in the evolutionary worldview and we need to push them on it.” [His big thing is "worldviews"; every belief is part of a bigger philosophy that guides your life and morals.]

“So on one hand they glory at the evidence that this particular viral strain supports their evolutionary theory, but on the other hand, they still fall into the conventional moral worldview that humanity puts forth, that human life is sacred and it needs to be protected at all levels.” [The linked article was probably the one he referred to in the podcast; but here again, it's not the new atheists "glorying" in it, but run-of-the-mill scientists noting yet another evidence for the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. Also notice: no denial from DeMar that this does support evolutionary theory!]

And finally:

“Isn’t that what evolution is all about, to get rid of the weakest members of society?

Now, this isn’t sarcasm – DeMar really believes that this is what evolution is. Who could ever guess that the man who utters this has the nerve to sell books he’s written about the fallacies of “Darwinism” (gee thanks, Dawkins, for using that term so much)? Not only is evolution not centered around getting rid of the weakest members of society, but he could not produce one quote from any of his favorite set of contemporary atheist apologists to speak in favor of such a thing. In fact, Dawkins specifically encourages “un-Darwinian misfiring” of our moral sense. DeMar’s blustering with slander here.

“Remember, it was Richard Dawkins who said that ‘super niceness’ is contrary to the evolutionary worldview. In evolutionary logic, there shouldn’t be any vaccinations, there shouldn’t be any hospitals. People who can’t make it should be left to die. They should be the fertilizer of the earth for those who have been able to fight against this viral strain.”

Dawkins never said anything about “the evolutionary worldview”. What he said was that super niceness is “a perversion of the Darwinian take on niceness.” Dawkins continues, “Well, if that’s a perversion, it’s the kind of perversion we need to encourage and spread.” Dawkins believes that a basic sort of “take care of your own” morality makes perfectly good evolutionary sense as part of the natural order, but above-and-beyond morality, self-sacrifice for people we don’t know and the like, would not increase (and likely decrease) our likelihood of selection and so is icing on the cake, an emergent accident that our race should be proud of. DeMar’s claim is that it is inconsistent for “evolutionists” to describe what has happened in nature and then advocate going above and beyond what nature has dealt us.

His only valid argument is that the atheistic humanitarian doesn’t have an objective reason to do what he does, not that he is somehow illegitimate for doing something apart from the blind, dumb natural processes of unchecked evolution. The thing that gets me every time he tries this is that his fond contention that consistent atheists/evolutionists have no objective moral reason to worry about people dying of the flu does not itself make atheism/evolution false. The best he can hope for is that someone decide they don’t like that consequence, and so seek other avenues where the results are more in line with their inclinations. This is not a good intellectual habit to be stroking.

All of his customary appeals to consequence aside, notice that DeMar has deftly steered the question of the source of Dawkins’s morality in a direction that he hopes will collide with and derail the scientific theory that is content to pursue the down-to-earth goal of describing the change in allele frequency in a given population over time. Gary DeMar has no answer to the latter, and so he is reduced to making the sorts of lame sarcastic potshots lobbed from this podcast.

Dr. Francis Collins is a remarkable man. He was the director of the phenomenally successful Human Genome Project that mapped the entire human genome years ahead of schedule. He’s a devout evangelical Christian who enjoys leading worship and writing songs that express the deep faith he acquired long after his acceptance of evolutionary theory.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Collins’s book The Language of God: a Scientist Presents Evidence for Faith, which is a testimony/autobiography as well as a discussion of reasons why he believes faith and science are complementary rather than at odds. I thought, though, that his evidence for evolution (directed at Christians skeptical of it) was much better than his evidence for faith (directed at atheists skeptical of it). This evidence relied on the moral argument and to a lesser extent, the fine-tuning argument. Really quick summary of the moral argument: certain core aspects of human morality seem universal and do not seem to be adequately accounted for by a materialistic world and an ancestry based in the amoral animal kingdom. Really quick summary of the fine-tuning argument: the probabilities that 1) a universe like ours, 2) a planet as habitable as ours is, and 3) life on this planet would all have originated naturally seem by current understanding to be astronomical. Collins has more good sense than to pass either of those arguments off as proof of a deity with an intention for humanity (still less as proof of the Christian God), but he uses them as his book’s subtitle suggests: evidence for faith.

As nice as it would be to be able to use those arguments, as yet I’m personally not comfortable with these sorts of “pointers to God”. Notice my italicized phrase in the last paragraph. If history is any indicator (and we keep looking), “the moral law” will turn out to have a much more natural explanation, and Christians who have been telling people that its supernatural origin is evidence for faith will have some egg on their face. No, evidence that the universe’s development is not so remarkable (for instance) would not alone undermine anyone’s faith. And Collins makes sure to say that his faith is more personal and relational than merely rational; in fact, I would say he is attempting more to explain why he can be intellectually satisfied as a believer than to hold up these things as evidences in and of themselves. Still, I can’t help wishing people would stop expecting to see supernatural peeking through the natural, as it were.

In other words, one can understand the physical world completely well in naturalistic, even materialistic terms. But trying to find God in the gaps of our current understanding of how (even in the question “how likely”) is bound to be an ever dwindling prospect as our understanding grows. If there is any place for God, we will find it in the search for meaning behind a gap-free understanding of the physical how’s of the universe. By my reckoning, Christianity’s still got the best description of meaning, one that functions on a practical level in giving believers a mission to love in a hyper-human way. As I have said before, I think Christianity was intended to be a vital phase in the evolution of humanity toward which the “moral law”, social consciousness, etc. was already pointing.

Now Dr. Collins has a wonderful new website discussing evolution that is oriented toward evangelicals. The organization behind the site is the BioLogos Foundation, named after a term he coined which he prefers over “theistic evolution” (I wonder what he thinks of “evolutionary creation“). In his words, “It’s a word that I made up, which means basically ‘life, by God speaking it into being.’ Bios is the Greek word for life, and Logos is from John 1:1: ‘in the beginning was the Word (Logos).’ “

Ok, as a substitute for “theistic evolution”, it sounds a bit corny (“I’m a BioLogician!”), if you ask me. But as a site and name for a foundation, it’s fine. And the site is wonderful.

The primary focus of the site right now is a souped-up FAQ answering evangelicals’ burning questions about evolution and how it jibes with Christian theology. Most of them are very good from what I’ve seen, but the question that is relevant to this post, “Question 13: What is a God-of-the-Gaps argument? Are fine-tuning and morality just new examples of this?“, is slightly troubling for the reasons described below. Here’s an excerpt talking about the “Fine-Tuning” argument:

One might argue that science could potentially explain the origins of these delicately balanced features, but there are two important things to keep in mind. First, it is very unlikely that a scientific theory could explain away the improbabilities of our Universe without raising other improbabilities. Second, an argument for fine-tuning is unlike a God-of-the-gaps argument in that it is not intended to prove God’s existence. While it is true that the fine-tuning of the Universe adds credence to belief in a creator, such recent scientific findings could hardly be called upon as the basis or justification of the long history of theistic belief. While the fine-tuning of the Universe does indeed lead many people to consider the possibility of God’s existence, the fact that science cannot disprove God’s existence assures us that it also cannot prove it. Instead, fine-tuning can be understood as a feature of the universe that is accordant with belief in a creator. A deeper scientific explanation of these features — albeit highly unlikely — would not ruin its usefulness as a pointer to God. [footnote omitted]

I don’t share Collins’s confidence that a forthcoming “deeper scientific explanation” is so improbable. Well, at least what we know so far is “accordant with belief in a creator”. But really: how many completely false ideas and inaccurate observations are “accordant with belief in a creator”? I find myself wondering how useful such a pointer is, any more than telling someone wanting to locate Draco to “look up at the sky when it’s nighttime”. I do understand his point: try not to look too delusional to atheists. This is a concern I share. But using as one of your primary evidences for your faith’s rationality statistics that have already shown some movement away from mind-blowing and toward simply scientifically interesting appears desperate (which is not much better than delusional).

Regarding the “Moral Law”, the site says:

The moral law also offers evidence that the world has evolved in a way that is consistent with the belief in a good and loving God. This remains true whether science eventually finds an account or explanation for morality. Even if a purely natural account of moral development could be found, the simple fact that morality has evolved is something that would be expected in a world created by a just and loving God.

I’ll admit, these apparent “pointers to God” are interesting, and I get what he’s saying; unless/until they are explained by a better understanding of the natural universe, the Moral Law and Fine-Tuning observations may well bolster pre-existing personal belief. The problem is that this talk is sure to be seized upon by Christians looking for another argument against the allegedly atheistic scientific establishment. This crowd will, despite Collins’s explicit rejection of this usage, take both of these as great apologetic tools or, worse, actual evidence against a universe governed proximately by non-supernatural laws, the type of universe that Collins and other “BioLogicians” such as myself believe in. There will doubtless be plenty of evolution-skeptics wandering around the site, not buying a word of it until they come to the Moral Law/Fine-Tuning stuff, whereupon they’ll tell themselves, “Well, at least my time wasn’t totally wasted: even an evolutionist can’t deny that this is dynamite evidence!” Used as purported evidence for the inadequacy of science to explain the processes responsible for the physical universe, these pointers will end up every bit as much God-of-the-gaps as Intelligent Design is.

So tell me, what do you think of the arguments as presented on the BioLogos webpage? Also be sure to let me know what you think of the site in general!

[Let me preface the main post with an acknowledgement of the obvious: I haven't been around these parts for quite a while, and for a number of reasons. First of all, I have described before my tendency to pursue one train of thought for long periods of time. Lately, it's been political theory, and although I was bringing a bit to this blog for a while, it began to seem that the blog was losing integrity. I decided to move all my political rants to Twitter and, to a limited extent, Facebook. Another major reason is that I have stated my position on most subjects that interest me, and I haven't found the motivation to rehash those topics in a way that's not being done more interestingly elsewhere. If I can't bring something new to the table, I'd just as soon not bother.]

Okay, so speaking of something (relatively) new to the table, I’d like to offer up this wonderful, tragically unsung episode of Star Trek: Voyager that has haunted me since I first saw it on its first run (back in the nineties). It approaches the science vs. faith debate in a way I’ve nowhere else seen it done so well. I just found this episode on YouTube, but embedding is disabled, so I thought I’d break my silence to present you a link to the playlist of five clips that make up the episode (Unfortunately, the link was taken down. I’m sure you can Netflix it, though. The episode is called “Sacred Ground”.) Don’t miss it and rob yourself of the experience.

I think “Sacred Ground” is indicative of how useful story is for conveying the ineffable. Without a storyline like this one, I wouldn’t even know how to begin to explain the insight revealed in this episode (incidentally the directorial debut of cast member Robert Duncan McNeill, who played Lt. Tom Paris and who is currently a producer/director for Chuck). Sure, it’s not a novel concept, but there’s no getting around the effectiveness of this plotline and the entertaining philosophical/theological dialogue between Janeway and the monks. It gets at the heart of why so many scientists can be so sure of scientific, non-miraculous explanations of the universe and yet remain devout in their belief that God is responsible. This episode illustrates perfectly why it is that – despite the fact that I have never observed a miracle and find the ones reported to me to have limited credibility, and regardless of the fact that I am convinced there are naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe, of the beginning of life, and of the diversity of life – nevertheless, the insistence of atheists upon materialism still rings so hollow to my ears. Just because we’ve done a great job explaining the how‘s of the natural universe (and not even all of them) doesn’t even imply that we’ve done away with any possible why‘s.

Let me know what you think!