A timely debate, given the recent ruling on 20 December over the
teaching of intelligent designs in Dover, Pennsylvania.
It should be pointed out that creationism and evolution are not
mutually exclusive options. Michael Innis states that "Perhaps the
“Intelligent Designer” devised “Evolution” as His/Her/Its Modus Operandi."
- not a statement that could be taken as scientific, due to the fact it is
not falsifiable, but at the same time seems inherently logical if one has
belief in a supreme being. This will not, however, be a discussion of
whether there is a supreme being or not, as this is the BMJ...
It was stated by Dr Hayes that mutations are only deleterious: if he
had any practical experience with molecular genetics I am sure that he
would have been aware that it is remarkably easy to create new phenotypes
with a simple mutation to a single base pair of a gene, and often the new
proteins produced can be more effective than their natural counterparts.
He states that there is no way to account for the presence of this
information. However, 'additions' to this code can frequently come about
due to genes duplicating themselves within the genome, and then being
affected by a random mutation that changes their function slightly. Often
the expression of these mutant proteins would lead to cell death, but
sometimes they may survive with no ill effect, and sometimes they may have
a beneficial effect upon the cell.
Also, consider mitochondria and chloroplasts: once they were single
celled organisms happily producing energy by themselves, now they have
been incorporated into animal and plant cells, and their genome has been
incorporated into our own. Also, consider the mechanism of viruses,
inserting their own genome into ours, effectively adding to the genome and
altering cell function as they do so. With viruses and bacteria being the
most primitive of organisms, yet being able to build up or amend a genome
in this fashion, does the construction of our genome seem so unlikely?
From a theological point of view, one must perhaps consider why such
a complex system would have been produced, when there are so many inherent
flaws: genetic problems account for 33% of spontaneous abortions, many
cancers are a result of the genetic machinery going haywire, many other
people suffer from cripppling genetic diseases. It is not a perfect
system, and hence this points towards the fact that it is one that has
evolved in the manner of not fixing and refining a problem, but rather
getting around it - surely a divine creator, drawing from scratch, would
have fixed something that ran a little more smoothly?
Dr. Sodera states that humans cannot evolve from apes - this is to
ignore the concept of evolution and divergence. Humans did not evolve
from chimpanzees, nor did chimpanzees evolve from the lesser mammals we
know today. However, we share a common ancestry, and it is since this
ancestor that our genes have been mutating and diverging, and had the
opportunity to allow us to become the species we are today. Also, to rely
on the use of simple combination mathematics to try and baffle the reader
rather trivialises the topic: aspects such as optimization and selection
pressures must be considered, which all of a sudden reduce the level of
'chance' required... also, this totally ignores the concept of the
possible evolution of RNA-based organisms prior to the advent of proteins
being the functional molecules of choice.
I cannot state that there is no such being as a creator, just as
someone else cannot state that such a being exists. However, given the
evidence presented - and there is an enormous amount of it about - one
would have to be heavily in favour of an evolution based approach to life.
All creationists tend to do is to bite and snipe at the arguments
presented for evolution, without providing actual positive evidence of
their own. The BMJ is a journal of science, and as such both the writers
and their respondants should adhere to a method of scientific thinking.
I look forward to reading from respondants who, instead of relying on
propagandist texts (such as the much quoted Behe here) are able to present
reasoned arguments from their own experience.
Rapid Response:
Not black and white.
Dear Sir,
A timely debate, given the recent ruling on 20 December over the
teaching of intelligent designs in Dover, Pennsylvania.
It should be pointed out that creationism and evolution are not
mutually exclusive options. Michael Innis states that "Perhaps the
“Intelligent Designer” devised “Evolution” as His/Her/Its Modus Operandi."
- not a statement that could be taken as scientific, due to the fact it is
not falsifiable, but at the same time seems inherently logical if one has
belief in a supreme being. This will not, however, be a discussion of
whether there is a supreme being or not, as this is the BMJ...
It was stated by Dr Hayes that mutations are only deleterious: if he
had any practical experience with molecular genetics I am sure that he
would have been aware that it is remarkably easy to create new phenotypes
with a simple mutation to a single base pair of a gene, and often the new
proteins produced can be more effective than their natural counterparts.
He states that there is no way to account for the presence of this
information. However, 'additions' to this code can frequently come about
due to genes duplicating themselves within the genome, and then being
affected by a random mutation that changes their function slightly. Often
the expression of these mutant proteins would lead to cell death, but
sometimes they may survive with no ill effect, and sometimes they may have
a beneficial effect upon the cell.
Also, consider mitochondria and chloroplasts: once they were single
celled organisms happily producing energy by themselves, now they have
been incorporated into animal and plant cells, and their genome has been
incorporated into our own. Also, consider the mechanism of viruses,
inserting their own genome into ours, effectively adding to the genome and
altering cell function as they do so. With viruses and bacteria being the
most primitive of organisms, yet being able to build up or amend a genome
in this fashion, does the construction of our genome seem so unlikely?
From a theological point of view, one must perhaps consider why such
a complex system would have been produced, when there are so many inherent
flaws: genetic problems account for 33% of spontaneous abortions, many
cancers are a result of the genetic machinery going haywire, many other
people suffer from cripppling genetic diseases. It is not a perfect
system, and hence this points towards the fact that it is one that has
evolved in the manner of not fixing and refining a problem, but rather
getting around it - surely a divine creator, drawing from scratch, would
have fixed something that ran a little more smoothly?
Dr. Sodera states that humans cannot evolve from apes - this is to
ignore the concept of evolution and divergence. Humans did not evolve
from chimpanzees, nor did chimpanzees evolve from the lesser mammals we
know today. However, we share a common ancestry, and it is since this
ancestor that our genes have been mutating and diverging, and had the
opportunity to allow us to become the species we are today. Also, to rely
on the use of simple combination mathematics to try and baffle the reader
rather trivialises the topic: aspects such as optimization and selection
pressures must be considered, which all of a sudden reduce the level of
'chance' required... also, this totally ignores the concept of the
possible evolution of RNA-based organisms prior to the advent of proteins
being the functional molecules of choice.
I cannot state that there is no such being as a creator, just as
someone else cannot state that such a being exists. However, given the
evidence presented - and there is an enormous amount of it about - one
would have to be heavily in favour of an evolution based approach to life.
All creationists tend to do is to bite and snipe at the arguments
presented for evolution, without providing actual positive evidence of
their own. The BMJ is a journal of science, and as such both the writers
and their respondants should adhere to a method of scientific thinking.
I look forward to reading from respondants who, instead of relying on
propagandist texts (such as the much quoted Behe here) are able to present
reasoned arguments from their own experience.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests