Design or Descent?
I’ve had a few responses to my video series, “What’s So Great About Evolution?” claiming that the evidence I presented for common descent can just as easily show common design, and that only by first presupposing evolution does one arrive at the descent conclusion - but the design conclusion is just as valid. Since none of the individuals has granted me permission to use their objections, I will quote them anonymously. Here are a few excerpts:
…You don’t like the fact that God designed species with similar traits. Too bad. That seems to be his major theme. You go on to say what God should have done. How presumptuous. The foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man (I Cor 1:25)…
…If creation is true then God simply designed species with common traits…
So what about this claim? Can the similarities and differences between the species be interpreted as evidence of God using similar designs to accomplish similar functions? It might be a valid claim, except for one very important thing: the record of evolutionary change contained within our DNA completely destroys the common design hypothesis. If all living things were created in their current form only 6,000 years ago (special creation), then God clearly went to very great lengths to give the overwhelming appearance of common ancestry when common traits do not necessarily require any similarities or differneces in our DNA whatsoever.
In case that was confusing, let me explain: the common traits or common design conclusion only works if you first assume that identical traits must be governed by identical genes. You can then explain genetic simiarities between any two species in terms of their common traits or biological functions. But when you examine the genetic data more closely, it becomes clear that this assumption is not even true for a metabolic process that all organisms have in common. Take Cytochrome C for instance - an enzyme used by all cells to convert raw materials into energy. The gene that codes for this enzyme is about 100 amino acids long, but several amino acids in the protein chain can be substituted without altering the enzyme’s function. This allows some mutations to be passes on. And since harmless (non-deleterious) mutations are allowed to accumulate in these genes over time, the degree of similarity and difference between any two species should have nothing to do whatsoever with common function because the metabolic process is identical in all living things that use this enzyme. Rather, the degree of similarity and difference between any two species should have everything to do with common ancestry. You see, the time from which any two species diverged from a common ancestor should precisely correlate with the amount of genetic dissimilarity in genes that perform the EXACT same function since non-deliterious mutations accumulate at a fairly consistent rate. And this is exactly what such studies in molecular genetics reveals. And there are dozens of metabolic processess shared by everything from bacteria to jellyfish to apes. Why are they all telling us the same story?
This is not at all what we should expect if all living things we created separately only a few thousand years ago. We should expect the creator to either use the same gene sequence for similar enzymes in all species, or to use a completely different gene sequence for similar enzymes in each species. To create all species with a built-in map showing their evolutionary history, and to have all of these various histories tell the same story as the fossil record, biogeography, and comparative anatomy - is extremely conincidental. Since 6,000 years is hardly enough time for any organism to accumulate the amount of variation in genes like Cytochrome C, the assumption of common design forces you to conclude that God must have created every living thing with these evolutionary patterns already built in. But Why?
As convincing as this argument is, what completely destroys the idea of common design are not the similarities and difference in functioning genes like Cytochrome C, but the similarities and differences in our Pseudogenes - those portions of our DNA that have become inactive, like the 3rd gene in the set of genes that once allowed primates to synthesize vitamin C (explained in Part 3 in my video series). There is no reason, except for common ancestry, why primates - who can’t sythesize vitamin C - should have non-functional copies of the same genes that other mammals have working copies of. And there is no reason, except for common ancestry, why all primates should share the exact same point mutation tothe exact same gene. And there is no reason, except for common ancestry, why other mutations (base substitutions) accumulated in the vitamin C genes since the initial mutation (base deletion) should conform perfectly to the predicted branching of the primate lineage from a hypothetical common primate ancestor. But in every case, the idea of common descent is confirmed by the data.
Again, how does the special creation model explain this? Is God trying to trick us? Is this a huge test of our faith? There are other brothers in Christ who actually believe this. And only the faithful remnant will pass this test!
-GJG
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 am
Gordon,
The difficulty here is that is takes a commitment of mental energy and background study to develop the basic understandings of biology necessary to follow the train of evidence favoring common descent (which you present so well). Once an individual commits him/herself to gain that understanding, the train of evidence is completely overwhelming. But Christians who perceive that they have nothing to gain, and much to lose from this full investigation of the data have an automatic disincentive to engage in it.
This explains why an extremely high percentage working biologists (Christian and non) hold to evolutionary theory, and an extremely high percentage of evangelical and fundamental Christians do not. In my immediate circle of Christian friends (probably numbering about 1000) I know of only two or three who fully understand and accept the evidence for evolution. On the other hand, I know of none in this group who fully grasp the significance of the evidence but who still reject evolution.
When I read the Creationist line of argumentation against evolution, it can be completely convincing to someone with a limited understanding of the sciences. It is easy to build a case against evolution for those predisposed to reject it. I understand why most of my friends reject evolution.
Your latest video, “The Evolutonary Creation Video” may be useful in dispelling the perception that Christianity is incompatible with science. Hopefully, some will be spurred on to a more informed, honest and open consideration of the facts.
Keep up the good work!
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Thanks Cliff for the comments. It’s very true what you say, especially your comment about how the evidence against evolution can appear convincing to the untrained eye. In fact, defense lawyers have mastered these very same techniques to muddy the waters and create reasonable doubt in an otherwise solid case.
It’s like, “Your DNA is on the victim, the victims blood was found all over the clothes you wore that day, and we can place you at the scene of the crime during the time that the crime was committed - but we still do not know exactly how you entered the victims house.” A really good lawyer would try and convince the jury that unless the presecution can demonstrate exactly how the accused entered the home of the victim - they don’t have a case. But the fact is, the positive evidence IS THE CASE - and the negative “evidence” is not really evidence at all. The details that still require explanation are immaterial to the forensic question of whether or not the accused murdered the victim.
By the way, I put the “Evolutionary Creation Video” on YouTube and GodTube under the name, “A Natural History of Creation”. I plan on posting news of this on my blog shortly.
Take care,
GJG
December 7th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Sort of thinking out loud here…
So God spoke everything into existence. We call it the tree of life, right? What if DNA was the language of God at the molecular level and the word was a tree, a phylogenetic tree? Sure it’s nonlinear, but how can creation in any way be linear, and why should we limit God to linearity? It’s not at all deceptive. Maybe it’s an unfolding of the word God used, and its revelation to us today is as it was to Moses — that there is one God, one Word.