Faith & Science

In a recent blog post titled “Truckling to the Faithful: A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down,” University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne firmly and publicly rejects the attempts by Darwin-lobbying organizations like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) to convince the American public that Darwinism and Christian faith are compatible. In case these organizations really want to know my opinion, I’m on Jerry’s side. Except that I’m only mostly on his side. You see Jerry is spot on when he writes But his other over-generalizations about Science and Religion being incompatible are, of course, extremely over-simplified. If only Science (capital S) and Religion (capital R) actually existed as such abstractions, Jerry would have the beginnings of an Read More ›

We often hear from Darwinians that the biological world is replete with examples of shoddy engineering, or, as they prefer to put it, bad design. One such case of really poor construction is the inverted retina of the vertebrate eye. As we all know, the retina of our eyes is configured all wrong because the cells that gather photons, the rod photoreceptors, are behind two other tissue layers. Light first strikes the ganglion cells and then passes by or through the bipolar cells before reaching the rod photoreceptors. Surely, a child could have arranged the system better — so they tell us.

The problem with this story of supposed unintelligent design is that it is long on anthropomorphisms and short on evidence. Consider nocturnal mammals. Night vision for, say, a mouse is no small feat. Light intensities during night can be a million times less than those of the day, so the rod cells must be optimized — yes, optimized — to capture even the few stray photons that strike them. Given the backwards organization of the mouse’s retina, how is this scavenging of light accomplished? Part of the solution is that the ganglion and bipolar cell layers are thinner in mammals that are nocturnal. But other optimizations must also occur. Enter the cell nucleus and “junk” DNA.

Only around 1.5 percent of mammalian DNA encodes proteins. Since it has become lore to equate protein-coding regions of the genome with “genes” and “information,” the remaining approximately 98.5 percent of DNA has been dismissed as junk. Yet, for what is purported to be mere genetic gibberish, it is strikingly ordered along the length of the chromosome. Like the barcodes on consumer items that we are all familiar with, each chromosome has a particular banding pattern. This pattern reflects how different types of DNA sequences are linearly distributed. The “core” of a mammalian chromosome, the centromere, and the genomic segments that frame it largely consist of long tracks of species-specific repetitive elements — these areas give rise to “C-bands” after a chemical stain has been applied. Then, alternating along the chromosome arms are two other kinds of bands that appear after different staining procedures. One called “R-bands” is rich in protein-coding genes and a particular class of retrotransposon called SINEs (for Short Interspersed Nuclear Elements). SINE sequence families are restricted to certain taxonomic groups. The other is termed “G-bands” and it has a high concentration of another class of retrotransposon called LINEs (for Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements), that can also be used to distinguish between species. Finally, the ends of the chromosome, telomeres, are comprised of a completely different set of repetitive DNA sequences.

This week Inside Catholic republished an absolutely brilliant essay by Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Benjamin Wiker on the problem of evil. This essay is one of the most thoughtful replies to the problem of evil — that the existence of evil evidences against God’s existence — I’ve seen packed into a short essay. It is a must read. Wiker describes how, in a feat of fuzzy thinking, evolution typically plays into dialogue on the problem of evil. Evolutionary answers to the problem, he argues, are more likely to do away with evil than explain it. And among the many important questions Wiker poses is whether we really want all evil purged from the earth. Take a look to see his Read More ›

Friday in Washington, D.C. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosted an event titled “Genes, Neuroscience, and Free Will.” The panel, which discussed whether new findings in neuroscience and genetics have destroyed our notion of free will, consisted of James Q. Wilson (Pepperdine), David Brooks (New York Times), Charles Murray (AEI), Sally Satel (AEI), and moderator Christina Hoff Sommers (AEI). I won’t bother to record the differing views of the panelists, for their differences were very few and very far between. Essentially, they all argued that we have an innate sense of free will and that findings in genetics and neuroscience have not undermined it because: (1) sure, genes determine behavior, but not 100%; often the environment contributes to our behavior Read More ›

Today is Earth Day. And it is worth pondering once again how marvelous Earth really is. Yet I find my mind today asking why anyone should care for Earth. From the materialist perspective, we are not really “supposed” to be here. And, we’re the late-comers to the party! So it always amazes me that many materialists are such avid environmentalists. But maybe this should not be surprising; after all, if one is a materialist, the earth is all there is, so we better keep it going! This response, however pragmatic, doesn’t satisfy me, though. For why should we keep anything going? For if the materialist is saying that the Earth is of intrinsic value, we can (indeed we must!) ask, Read More ›

Today at Beliefnet, David Klinghoffer has a provocative essay commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado. Klinghoffer notes that Columbine killer Eric Harris was inspired in part by his fanatical devotion to Darwinian natural selection, a trait Harris unfortunately shared with many opponents of human dignity during the past century. Given the pervasive influence of Social Darwinism in our culture, Klinghoffer suggests that Darwin’s Tree of Life might be more appropriately viewed as a Tree of Death: Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution with its Tree of Life is applauded by most sophisticated Americans and Europeans as a scientific idea pure and simple, without the aura of dread and terror that, properly, should surround it in Read More ›

Recently, David Brooks published a column titled “The End of Philosophy” in The New York Times (April 7, 2009). Brooks, long one of the most thoughtful writers in public life, addresses an ages-old tension over whether reason controls our moral intuitions and passions, or whether moral intuition/feeling is king and reason is only rationalization.

In the latter view, Brooks says,

There’s an interesting column in today’s Vancouver Sun, “‘Scientism’ infects Darwinian debates An unflinching belief that science can explain everything about evolution becomes its own ideology”. Interesting because it is rare to see sceintism called out and criticized, especially by someone who shows his own high level of faith in evolution. According to the author, Douglas Todd: There are two major obstacles to a rich public discussion on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and what it means to all of us. The most obvious obstacle is religious literalism, which leads to Creationism. It’s the belief the Bible or other ancient sacred texts offer the first and last word on how humans came into existence. The second major barrier to a Read More ›