PART 1. Clearing the fog of fact vs. opinion
The topic of natural evolution and theories on the origin of life have been distorted by different ideologies, so the intent of this article is to clear the fog from the subject matter, and not so much to prove or disprove scientific theories of natural evolution as that is in abundance elsewhere. You will also not find much current data on recent discoveries on genetic evolution here since it is readily available from many other sources, and not the direct intent of this article.
The ones who claim life originated from and was designed by an Intelligent Creator (usually the Christian God) invoke the claim as absolute truth, rather than a proposition or idea, yet they admit their truth claim is based on faith rather than evidence and reason. Faith has no effect on the truth value of statements made, and faith cannot validate anything to be objectively true or false. The burden of proving a claim to be true lies with the one making the claim, not the one refuting it, so essentially no arguments against Intelligent Design are necessary to make it invalid, as there is no evidence and reason to validate it in the first place. But I enjoy exploring topics like this, so I’ll entertain some contention against ID anyway.
Definitions
Before discussing any hot topic, it’s always best to be sure we are on the same page with definitions. These are just simplified definitions off the top of my head, not official to a particular dictionary or anything, but this will help prevent us from talking past each other.
- Evolution – Changes in genetic frequency and coding within carbon based lifeforms typically caused by variations, adaptations, mutations, reconstructive sequencing, and alterations through symbiotic interaction with other organic matter over a ridiculously long period of time. ( I purposely left out definitions of macro and micro-evolution as they are a bit of a non-sequitur to theories of genetic evolution)
- Darwinian Evolution – A primitive theory of variations and alterations that occur in living organisms through natural selection on a species level. Many that subscribe to Darwinian Evolution must resort to confirmation bias and ignorance of current data in order to still be loyal to the Darwinian conclusions (Although some of Charles Darwin’s theories have been validated with the addition of evidence).
- Charles Darwin – Born into the elite ruling class. A geologist, racist, and eugenicist that proposed a theory of evolution that was suitable for the ruling class to justify the population control narrative. His popular book; “Origin of Species” was originally called “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Of course race doesn’t exist on a genetic or scientific level, race is just an arbitrary cultural concept of the mind. Darwin’s evolutionary theories are worshiped by the academic and political ruling class, and not aligned with objective science. (You’ll never learn that in State schooling institutions)
- Intelligent Design – (ID) The theory or religious ideology that claims species and certain aspects of living things were (and currently are, depending on the extent of religious belief) composed and directed by a conscious, all powerful, all knowing, infinitely complex spiritual being, usually identified as the Christian Deity.
- Creationism – The belief that all matter, energy, and biological life was created by God. Creationism pertains to the origin of life, not the evolution of life.
Unproven Theories vs. Validated Facts
The problem with the Intelligent Design / evolution debate lies primarily in confusing unproven theory with conclusive evidence and fact. Many Darwinists have ideological loyalties to the theories put forth by Charles Darwin, and they will purposely avoid evidence that would counter their position, and the same is true for those who hold Intelligent design as their ideology. Some people also put forth unproven evolutionary theories of how life originated and claim it as truth. These truth claims about the origin of life are counterproductive to the methodology of science.
In the process of discovering evolution and the origin of life, there are things that are known, and things that are unknown. When someone takes what is unknown and says they know for sure that God did it, and they don’t back it up with validation, because it’s on the premise that we can never understand that which involves the workings of God, it doesn’t help the curious discovery process needed to push the boundary of what is unknown. “God did it” is just a non-answer that suffocates curiosity and exploration, and increases ignorance.
It’s fine to put forth a proposition that entertains the idea of an intelligent designer and creator of biological life, and then look for evidence that would increase or decrease the truth value of that proposition, but when the Intelligent Design / Divine Creator crowd asserts truth claims of absolution that some Spiritual Deity is responsible for all living things, and there is no other possibility, it destroys their credibility and they come across as foolish ideologues.
The ideologues that defend the primitive Darwinian position, and the ideologues that are loyal to the ID / Divine Creator position both have no credibility or integrity when they claim they know for sure their position is true without any doubt, without any conclusive validation to back it up; That is the opposite of science.
Science is a process of taking the unknown and methodically figuring it out by using non-contradictory data that is verifiable, reproducible, consistent, predictable, universal, and objective. Antithetical to that methodology is the Intelligent Design doctrine, which takes what is unknown and says it can’t be figured out, so just have faith, then assigns an abstract subjective concept as a final answer. Science produces validatable fact, Intelligent Design ideology produces opinion.
The ones that have credibility in the evolution / ID debate are the ones that put forth, or entertain a proposition, and then curiously explore any potential evidence to validate or disprove that proposition without being wed to any conclusion. Science has not figured out how life originated, and has not figured out all aspects of evolutionary theories. When science does not have a clear answer to a question, the answer is “I don’t know” so lets keep exploring; Religion’s answer to anything that science hasn’t figured out yet is “God did it” so stop your curious explorations and just go with our opinion that we refer to as fact.
The intent of this article is not to make the case for any particular position on this topic. The intent is to clear away subjective opinions masked as objective truth so the exchange of ideas can flourish again. The intent is also to clarify what is known vs. what is unknown, what is fact, what is unproven theory, what is possible, what is plausible, and what is impossible or absurd in relation to claims put forth on this topic. When exploring answers to questions, one must make sure to use the correct methodology that reflects objective manifestations in reality, while not being devoted to conclusion affirmation.
Another problem with the standard ID position is that the rebuttals put forth to argue against evolution are riddled with straw man fallacies. In other words, they distort the actual facts and theories of current evolution.
For example, the ID crowd will say how absurd it is that apes evolved into humans, therefore current evolutionary theories are not valid. They are arguing against primitive Darwinian theories that have been falsified. Genetics hadn’t been discovered in Darwin’s day, so his assumption that the human species evolved from chimpanzees is incorrect. Yes, hominids are genetically common ancestors to chimps, but that doesn’t mean the human species evolved from chimpanzees. Darwin used to think that evolution happened on a species and race level (man made concepts). That was before the genetic identification revolution. Just because some of Darwin’s theories can be falsified doesn’t mean all theories of evolution as a whole are falsified.
It’s funny how Darwin gets all the credit for coming up with the idea of natural selection and evolution, but Alfred Wallace contributed just as much as Charles Darwin in these ideas, and during the same time. It’s just that Darwin was part of the ruling class, and Wallace was not, so Darwin goes down in history with the credit, and the Intelligent Design crowd just follows the red herring down the wrong path, arguing against ruling class positions rather than scientific positions.
The not-so-intelligent designer
If we assume that God designed all life, wouldn’t you think someone with that capability would provide higher quality results than what there is and has been? It’s a fact that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. I would say that’s a very poor track record for something to be called an “intelligent designer.” That statistic also makes me wonder, are we going against the natural harmony of life on earth by trying to save species from extinction? The more diversity of life in an ecosystem, the stronger that system is as a whole, so probably best to keep saving the rare forms of life.
Just look at how small of a speck the earth is in comparison to the rest of the known universe. If the universe was created by God, and life on earth was created by God, why would he make like 99.9999% of spacetime naturally uninhabitable to humans and most other life forms. That’s like having kids and spreading poison gas everywhere they could possibly go except for a little closet in their room. But God loves you nonetheless. After all, he created the universe to have a relationship with one modern species of hominid; all the other life forms are just here for a supporting role.
The Pope recently confirmed that dogs go to heaven, so dogs must be improving their position in the animal kingdom to be on God’s payroll. At least the other animals still get to go to Sugarcandy Mountain. The pope conveniently forgot to mention if dogs also go to hell. This also makes me wonder; Are dogs automatically granted a free pass, or does a dog still need to get saved, or baptized (depending on the flavor of religion) to get to heaven? I think we should start taking our dogs to church with us.
I wonder how the Creationist would explain where dogs came from. Are they willing to invoke a claim that God created dogs? With the recent understanding of genome sequencing, we now know that the dog species is derived from the grey wolf species. This was not from natural selection in the way many other species come about, but through artificial selection (man-made) by way of epigenetics, from wolves and humans forging a symbiotic relationship over many generations.
If I were going to design a life form, I would design something much different than a hominid formation. How about a life form that doesn’t eat, drink, and breath through the same hole to prevent choking, or that doesn’t fall prey to small bacterial life, or that can utilize energy more efficiently. Humans have to consume ridiculous amounts of calories in comparison to the amount of energy used relative to other life forms. Humans can’t even enjoy the sunshine for long periods of time, or the UV rays will harm the skin. Humans are comatose for about one third of their life (almost one half for me, I love to sleep). The human brain cannot function properly without the body going into sleep mode, I don’t even have to do that with my laptop. Even though humans are the chosen ones, and all other life plays second fiddle, humans still suffer from biological diseases and viruses. Some humans are also allergic to other things in the Intelligent Designer’s creation. Is that intelligent design?
The creationist will say only God could design something as complex as the human eye. They of course omit the factor that billions of years were allotted to allow for genetic mutations and environmental adaptations from a primitive body part that could sense photons, to a complex system that could result in the current version of the human eye. Even with billions of years to evolve, we are still blind to most of what there is to see. The human eye cannot even perceive even half of the wavelengths of light that exist. If I were an omnipotent creator that wanted the best results for my creation, I would make eyes that could actually see the majority of my creation. I would make ears that could hear more wavelengths of sound. I would make the sensory parts of the being more durable to last until death, so that life form could appreciate my creation for the duration of existence in the physical realm. I would make a life form that could sense pain but have the ability to make the pain not hurt after the subject is aware of the injury. As relatively complex and elegant as life forms on earth are, they are still not close to anything a minimally intelligent being could come up with.
The creationist will tell you that all the life that God has created in the physical realm is just temporary preparation for the spirit realm, so there’s not much priority in making physical life with such high quality results, because this life on earth doesn’t count much in comparison for what’s to come. After you die, you will really be alive. In heaven, you’ll magically still have all the effects of your physical senses, but you won’t have the cause of your physical senses. You won’t have eyes, ears, nerves, etc. but somehow you will see, hear, and feel more clearly than ever. How can you have an effect without a cause? Other loved ones will be able to recognise you as you were in the physical world even though you no longer consist of atomic matter. They are absolutely sure about this, yet if you curiously question it, they say the human mind (created by God) cannot comprehend the spirit realm of God, so don’t even try to think about it. If I were an all powerful, loving creator, I would design a being that actually could comprehend that which is destined to come, that way folks wouldn’t have to spend so much time preaching the good word to others, and they could spend that time loving and helping others, and everyone would have a relationship with me (the divine creator) that doesn’t even require subjective faith.
The central planning paradigm
Generation after generation throughout history, people have been conditioned to believe that central planning from a single authority figure or superior ruling class provides better results than individuals freely interacting symbiotically with each other with self-interest as the primary motivator. Or put simply, some folks think dictatorships are better than free markets. People used to believe (maybe some still do) that Kings were divinely superior to the rest of the population in society, and the arbitrary authorities have a duty to rule over others. Even to this day, many folks fall for the fallacy of “government can do it better than the sum of free individuals.” This paradigm is reflected in the argument for intelligent design. Individual single cells and genes couldn’t possibly evolve and adapt to environmental changes based on symbiotic interactions with other cells and genes, it has to be orchestrated by a single, complex, omniscient, omnipotent being, like a king of kings. The elegant structures within life on the molecular level accomplishing specific tasks must be done by a king or single creator. Life forms of all sizes are too stupid to evolve and adapt through self-directed means.
The evidence shows that evolution occurs from the bottom up (self-directed individual genes), the ID position claims it is all top down directed from a single all powerful, all knowing ruler.
Most folks nowadays have broken free from the fallacy of central planning, but the ideology of ID is based on the centralized ruler model and is therefore established on a false premise.
Should ID be taught in school?
I don’t support compulsory state schooling institutions because they are designed to teach conformity to arbitrary authority, rather than teaching how to think for oneself using correct methodologies that reflect objective reasoning. “Teaching” Darwinism, while omitting the teaching of Intelligent Design and Creationism in public schooling is a clear example of not letting children think and know for themselves. Children should be free to learn all aspects and variables of the biological evolution and origin topic, and using the tools of logic and laws of identity, deciding objectively what is true or false. Intelligent Design should absolutely be taught in schools. Darwinism and Intelligent Design would just be more suitable in the history classroom rather than the science classroom.
The irreducible complexity argument
A close friend of mine recommended a book by Michael Behe titled Darwin’s Black Box. I like how books recommended by loved ones are more enjoyable than ones picked out by myself. The book is very good at making arguments against natural evolutionary theories, and also helps the reader identify the distinct differences between Darwinian evolutionary ideologies and natural evolutionary theories. The author also makes an effort to affirm Intelligent Design as an answer, but falls short of anything credible.
The crux of the book questions natural evolution by identifying the complexities of life at the cellular and molecular level, the most compelling of which is what’s called irreducible complexity of biological systems, which is many interactive parts that contribute to the function of a system where the removal of any parts causes the system to no longer function.
This questioning of natural evolution is great step in science. The best way to advance understanding in science is to ask questions that would try to falsify propositions make.
One problem with Behe’s argument is that he is looking at molecular changes in a linear fashion. He’s going on the premise that evolution just adds parts one by one, so taking these complex systems and restricting it to go in reverse one by one wouldn’t make sense. The process of evolution isn’t just limited to that, genes also change and/or remove parts.
Behe also takes the example of the complex immune system in humans and claims that if any complimenting parts were removed, it would cause it to not function, therefore all the exact molecular parts must have been created at the same time for the system to function as a whole. The problem with this is, there are other vertebrate species that have functional immune systems genetically comparable but not identical. The reality is, there are multiple ways to get to a functional end result. Remember, each species, cell, and molecule has a differing environment in which to adapt to, so the complex system in one environment may not be suitable for another environment.
He is also asserting that every change has a specific purpose. The reality is when genes turn on or off, or when mutations occur, the functions can be neutral or adaptive, and multiple changes can occur simultaneously, it doesn’t have to be one after the other.
Sometimes genes shut off or mutate and the result is a shortcut, or more simple process for an end result that is less complex than before. The point is, the formula that survives for multiple generations is more important than how complex a formula can get. For example, the tardigrade is genetically simple compared to a human, yet it can withstand extreme conditions. It can actually survive conditions outside of earth’s atmosphere, so having a more complex genome sequence wouldn’t necessarily make it more fit for generational survival.
There are many questions Behe brings up that I don’t have answers to, and maybe no one else does either. So we should keep exploring rather than go to the default answer of “God did it” as an “answer” to that which science does not know yet.
I recommend “Darwin’s Black Box” to anyone interested in this topic. It’s a very good step in the right direction for science.
The Creationist paradox
Both sides of the intelligent design / natural evolution debate acknowledge the fact that biological life started simple, and generally progressed to more complex life. Except for the few who still ignore the evidence and proclaim the universe is like six thousand years old, and God made all of spacetime, and biological life in one work week. Every time you look at the stars in the night sky, your eyes are seeing the light that was emitted from stars millions of years ago. All you have to do is look up at night and you will see the distant past.
The unequivocal contradiction put forth by the Intelligent Design crowd is that the most complex, all powerful, all knowing, being is so elaborate that “he” cannot even be comprehended by the most intelligent conscious life forms on earth, and that was the thing that came before any other form of life or consciousness. The crux of the ID position is a complete contradiction of what the empiricism shows. If life forms as complex as that which we see on earth must have needed an intelligent designer in order to exist, shouldn’t the single most complex life form also need an intelligent designer? Should I even bother asking who or what created the most complex form of intelligence, or is it “turtles all the way down” as the story goes? If a creator who is more complex than the universe and any life within it didn’t have or need a creator, then neither does the universe and life within it. Anyone who understands the natural laws of identity will know that it only takes one contradiction in a proposition to render it invalid. Contradictions and paradoxes cannot exist in reality.
Purpose and meaning is comforting
Please don’t misunderstand me by thinking I am anti-creationist, or that I have any contempt for the concept of Intelligent Design or God. It’s a very comforting feeling to think that humans were created by a divine source who has a plan and purpose for us, and watches over us. As much as I enjoy that comforting feeling and want it to be true, I prefer to live my life in an honest and authentic way by recognizing that everything exists independent of what my consciousness wishes it would or could be. I am not loyal to that which makes me feel good, I am loyal to evidence and reason regardless of what I want it to be.
PART 2. Exploring Curiosities
There are libraries full of evolutionary theories proven and null. I don’t intend to consolidate much of that here, because it is so readily available to those who are open-minded and curious enough to learn what has been discovered in the recent past with this topic. ( For a basic overview of recent discoveries, and an easy read intertwined with humor, I recommend “Undeniable” by Bill Nye) So I hope you’ll sever any emotional attachments to conclusions you may hold, and enjoy some questions to explore.
Common Genetics
Genetic Identification and decoding has come a long way over the past few decades. All that has been identified so far shows that all life on earth has common genetic heritage. In other words, all types of life on the “tree of life” have common ancestry that originates from the trunk of that single tree the further back you go. So it appears as though there is just one genesis to life on earth. In order to figure out the how and why, it would be helpful to find life somewhere else in the universe so that we could compare and contrast, and hopefully identify the genetics of that life (which would probably bring on many more questions). Would that life be a completely different “tree”, or would it have common genetics?
It appears that life has been on earth for about 4 billion years or so, and evidence shows that life on earth began soon after the heavy bombardment of other unformed planets and asteroids toward earth subsided. That’s when environmental conditions would allow for complex molecules to flourish. So if we all have common genetic ancestry (one tree of life), why hasn’t a second tree of genetic life appeared while conditions on earth are fertile for it, or why haven’t many coexisting trees of life on earth developed over this long duration of time? Maybe there were other genetic “trees” that died off long ago, that we haven’t found fossils for, and they weren’t suited to survive like our genetic tree.
Did life originate on earth?
It’s hard to comprehend just how long 4 billion years is, and some folks think 4 billion years is still not enough time for simple organisms to evolve into complex, self-aware life forms. But maybe evolution has had much longer than that amount of time.
Consider this, the tardigrade is one of many extremophiles that does just fine in extreme temperatures, pressures, radiation, and acidic levels.
When an asteroid impacts a planet, the terrain surrounding that impact can be hurled away, escaping the gravitational pull of a planet and launched into space. The data shows that in the past, rocks from mars have landed on earth, and vice versa. Interplanetary exchanges are common in the formation of a solar system.
There is also an abundance of indications that mars used have liquid water on it back when it was warmer there. Mars may have been an adequate environment to sustain life long before earth was ever a candidate.
If all this is true, could it be possible that some extremophile organisms like the tardigrade on early mars may have hitched a ride on some rocks that were cast off into space from asteroid impacts, with some of those rocks destined for earths orbit? Could that collection of microbes that survived the journey from mars to earth be what seeded early earth with life?
With the increasing exploration on Mars expected in the next couple decades, it could be possible to find evidence of microbial life on Mars. I wonder if any leaders of Intelligent Design, or religious leaders are willing to make the truth claim that there is no life to be found anywhere other than Earth, or are they thinking science is too close to figuring it out?
Why are earthly molecules left-handed?
Different complex molecules can be chemically identical when written out, but in the actual structure, one is a mirror image of the other (chirality). For example, the molecule for the amino acid in spearmint is identical to the one in caraway when written out, yet the structures are mirror image of each other.
What’s strange is that almost all molecular life on earth is left-handed, but organic molecules that are found on meteorites are about half left-handed and half right-handed in structure. When we find those same molecules from earth, they are always left-handed. So, could there be another earth-like planet out there with life, but with molecules that are primarily right-handed? And could one type of handedness have an advantage over the other?
It’s ok to not have an answer
Many people who have an emotional and ideological attachment to the default answer of – “God did it” or “the Intelligent Designer did it” to every question and curiosity put forth, seem to have difficulty leaving a question unanswered until evidence and reason can answer it.
There has been dramatic progress made in the understanding of genetics and molecular life in the recent past, but there are plenty of questions that still don’t have an answer, and may never have an answer. But calling something an answer without validation is just an empty non-answer. Humans haven’t figured out the origin of life, and may never figure it out, and there are still questions about the evolution of life, but invoking non-answers to these questions is counterproductive to the process that the genuinely curious use to identify that which exists.
The progression of discoveries, and the addition of more fine-tuned questions and answers that have come about from the idea of evolution show that evolution is valid and on the right track. There has been no progress or discoveries that have come about from the idea of intelligent design ever since it was invoked. That alone shows that genetic evolution is aligned with reality, while Intelligent Design is a dead end idea.
