Evolution v. Progress

June 22, 2007 by Dr. Mc.

Some years ago I spoke to an assembly in Perth, Western Australia on the difficulties with Darwinian theory. Afterwards a young woman who came up front made the sideways remark, “Well, I guess we could just abandon science in favor of this.” I was taken back, because I don’t see the connection, and I thought that was clear. Her culture (and I’m afraid mine, too) has trained us to believe science and evolution cannot not be separated. But if evolution were dropped from science, it would make very little difference in scientific progress. The only thing eliminated would be a justifying belief system for why things are the way they are, not how they work. Can you think of a scientific advancement that depends on evolution being true? Let us consider a few advances:

• Classification of life forms–Our system was set up by Georges Cuvier, a Creationist.

• Scientific analysis of earth layers–Developed by Nicholas Steno, a Creationist, to help miners predict the location of ore in England. He interpreted the layers as the result of a world-wide flood.

• Genetics–Gregor Mendal is today recognized a the father of modern genetics, but it is seldom noted that his pea plant experiments followed on the heals of Darwin’s book, and his purpose was to demonstrate that the peas have modular (gene) characteristics that cycle back and forth, and no permanent change takes place. For that point you will have to read a translation of his actual paper. It’s toward the end, and he cites another scientist who supports the same conclusion.

So evolution is not necessary for the advancement of science. Is it profitable? A hindrance? Consider that biology has dismissed many organs over the years as “vestigial,” meaning left over from evolution, and therefore useless to the organism today. Slowly that number has shrunk, as their purposes are discovered anyway. How much faster could science advance if questions were not dismissed from research by evolutionary explanations? For a current example, look at Richard Ingram’s article in Discovery, “Landmark Study Prompts DNA Rethink.” Based on evolution assumptions, much of DNA has been considered as junk:

“In between the genes and the sequences known to regulate their activity are long, tedious stretches that appear to do nothing. The term for them is “junk” DNA, reflecting the presumption that they are merely driftwood from our evolutionary past and have no biological function.

But the work by the ENCODE (ENCyclopaedia of DNA Elements) consortium implies that this nuggets-and-dross concept of DNA should be, well, junked.” (p. 1)

“But the ENCODE consortium were surprised to find that the genome appears to be stuffed with functional elements that offer no identifiable benefits in terms of survival or reproduction.” (p. 2)

They were surprised because functional elements that do not contribute to survival or reproduction do not fit the Darwinian model. Will they abandon the Darwinian model? Hardly. They are rethinking how to make evolution fit with the new knowledge, and in the future we may again find how it stifles scientific progress.

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »