The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Containing His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).

PragerU - Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven

I am a firm believer that science is the best way of explaining the physical properties and physical laws of the universe. I also am a firm believer that God created our universe and established its physical properties and physical laws. And I see no conflict between the views of Science and Religion. Science is the explanation of how God created the universe, and God is the explanation of why we have the physical properties and physical laws of the universe.

Prager University has recently released a new video "Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven" by Stephen Meyer on Oct 21, 2019 captioned as follows:

“For a century Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has been as unquestioned as Newton’s theory of gravity. But science never stops asking questions. Or at least it’s not supposed to. Stephen Meyer, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, takes up the challenge in this video. Are there questions about the origins of life that Darwinism can’t answer?”

Dr. Meyer presents two issues that he believes questions the correctness of the modern theory of evolution. While I agree that his objections have merit, I also believe that he has not fully considered other issues that could lead to a different conclusion. I would, therefore, like to point these out for your consideration.

But first we must consider a few scientific premises to understand these issues.

* * * * *

As I have written in my Article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry” science is in a constant state of flux. New facts or corrected facts are always being discovered. This leads to revision in current theories, or the creation of new hypothesis that could displace a currently accepted theory. It should be remembered that scientific theories are not guesses (as English parlance defines theory,) but are the best explanations for the facts, as the American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Steven Jay Gould has stated:

“Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.”
  - Steven Jay Gould

All scientific theory are incomplete, as not all the facts are known, or that some of the known facts could be incomplete or incorrect. Therefore, scientific theories are subject to modification or replacement. But just because a scientific theory many be incomplete or contains incorrectness it does not make them necessarily wrong. They could be wrong, but more likely they need to be modified. Only when a scientific theory has been shown by new or corrected facts to be incapable of modification should we consider it to be wrong. At that point, it may be advisable to consider rejecting the scientific theory or displacing it with a new scientific theory.

A perfect historical example of this is Isaac Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction. It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687.

Newton's universal theory of gravitation held sway for over two hundred years, but as Newton freely admitted he did not know what gravity actual was, he simply described how it worked. Over these centuries Astronomers observed an inconsistency in the orbit of the planet Mercury that Newton’s gravitational theory could not account for. They tried to reconcile the inconsistency with Newton’s theory but failed. It took another great scientist, Albert Einstein, to propose a new theory of gravity in 1912, General Relativity, that resolved this inconsistency and predicted other gravity phenomena that Newton’s theory could not account for. Therefore, General Relativity theory displaced Newton’s Universal Gravity theory.

One of the peculiarities of the human mind is its inability to grasp the very small and the very large. We place numbers on the very small and very large to assist us in comprehending them. However, we can never fully grasp them in their entirety. The Enormousness of Time and the Vastness of Space in the Universe is something that the human mind is incapable of grasping. A universe that is 13.8 billion years old, and perhaps hundreds of billions of light years in size, is not something a human being can fully grasp. The vastness of space is not germane to this article, but the enormousness of time is germane. We must keep in mind the enormousness of time whenever we discuss evolution.

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the evolution of microbial life on Earth started about 3.7 billion years ago. The earliest evidence of complex cells with tiny cellular structures that performs specific functions within a cell dates back 1.85 billion years, while more complex life forms began about 850 million years ago. The Cambrian Explosion event occurred approximately 541 million years ago when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil record. It lasted for about 13 – 25 million years and resulted in the divergence of most modern life forms. Human evolution is the evolutionary process that led to the emergence of anatomically modern humans, beginning with the evolutionary history of primates—in particular genus Homo—and leading to the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of the hominid family, the great apes. Within the apes superfamily, the Hominidae family diverged from the gibbon family some 15–20 million years ago; African great apes diverged from orangutans about 14 million years ago; and the humans, Australopithecines and other extinct biped genera, and chimpanzees tribe parted from the gorilla tribe between 8–9 million years ago. The humans and their biped ancestors and chimpanzees separated from the others about 6 to 7 million years ago.

As can be seen, the evolution of life on Earth took an enormous amount of time, and even the 6 to 7 million years it took for humans to evolve is an extremely large amount of time. Always keep in mind the enormousness of time whenever you think on evolution.

* * * * *

Keeping in mind my thoughts on Scientific Theory and the Enormousness of Time we can begin to discuss the Prager University video "Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven" by Dr. Stephen Meyer.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in the philosophy of science. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. In 2004, Meyer ignited a firestorm of media and scientific controversy when a biology journal at the Smithsonian Institution published his peer-reviewed scientific article advancing intelligent design.

As I have stated my beliefs on an “Intelligent Designer” in my Article on “Religiosity” this need not address in this article. I would, instead, restrict my comments to the two issues that Dr. Meyer brought forth in this video; the Cambrian Explosion Event and The DNA Enigma.

The Cambrian Explosion event occurred approximately 541 million years ago when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil record. It lasted for the relativity short geological period of 13 to 25 million years. Dr. Meyer is correct to point out that this seems to be a relatively short period of time for this to happen. However, notwithstanding, 13 to 25 million years is still an enormous amount of time. Also, it should be pointed out that there is a dearth of facts about what the environmental state of the Earth was during this time. Given the hundreds of millions of years of erosion (water, atmospheric, glaciation, volcanism, earthquakes, tectonic activity, solar activity, life form activities, etc.) it is amazing that we have as much information that we currently have. We may expect that we will gain more information in the future, but we can also expect that we cannot gain all the information that we need. Much of the information may have simply disappeared due to erosion. The Cambrian Explosion event needs more information, and better science, for us to understand its workings. This will lead to a modification to the scientific theories on what occurred, but probably not to a replacement of the scientific theory.

The DNA Enigma refers to the statistical improbability of the DNA to sequence and re-sequence itself to produce viable, and even improved, DNA that can be utilized for the propagation and improvement of a species. There are four snippets of DNA that need to be in the proper order and sequence within the DNA for the viability of life. Each species has a different complexity of its DNA, with different orders and different sequences that defines its DNA. It is highly statistically unlikely that a random reordering or resequencing would produce viable life DNA let alone an improved viable life DNA.

And I agree with Dr. Meyer that a random reordering or resequencing is very highly statistically unlikely. Although it is highly unlikely, it is not impossible, given the enormous amount of time it took life to evolve. Perhaps it only takes a few lucky hits for life to evolve, rather than trying for all possibilities. Maybe we just got lucky, but I would not bet my life savings on this luck. But the inherit assumption of all of this is the word “random”. Perhaps there were environmental factors that reduced this randomness to the point of possibility. Perhaps there is something the DNA (the "Dark Matter of the Genome") that restricts the randomness. In other words, it's not the chemistry or physics that produces the sequences that conveys the instructions, it something extraneous to the physics and chemistry of the system, and that extraneous something remains a mystery.

Again, I would point out that there is a dearth of facts about what the environmental state of the Earth was during this time, and the functioning of DNA. When, or if, we discover more and better information about the environmental state and DNA functioning we can modify the scientific theories to accommodate “The DNA Enigma”.

* * * * *

It is not possible for science to completely explain everything due to not all the facts being known, or that some of the known facts could be incomplete or incorrect. Science is constantly reexamining its facts, through observations and experimentation, to determine their validity and to gain additional facts. When more facts become known scientific theories are modified to accommodate the new facts. When the new facts contradict a scientific theory, or when the new facts cannot be incorporated into the scientific theory, then it is time to doubt a scientific theory. Until this occurs it is incorrect to say that a scientific theory is wrong because it cannot explain everything. Those things that it cannot explain may simply require more scientific investigation for an explanation to be obtained. Remember, nothing can explain everything, and if we wait for something to explain everything, then nothing is what you will have. It is better to have a scientific theory that explains the known facts, that can be modified or replaced as additional facts are ascertained, then to have no scientific theory that scientists can build upon through observation and experimentation.

Any scientist who wishes to propose a new scientific hypothesis must explain all the currently known facts in their hypothesis, as well as new facts that contradict the current scientific theory but is explained by their new scientific hypothesis. The new scientific hypothesis must also be better than the old scientific theory, which must be confirmed by observation and experimentation by other scientists (known as scientific reproducibility). Consensus by other reputable scientists that the new scientific hypothesis is better leads to the old scientific theory being displaced by the new scientific hypothesis, which is then elevated to a new scientific theory. Even if consensus is obtained the scientific theory may still be wrong as explained in my Article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry”.

Although the Cambrian Explosion Event and The DNA Enigma may lead one to raise a wary eye to the current scientific theories, I do not believe it is sufficient to discard the current scientific theories. I expect, however, that the current scientific theories will need to be modified by new facts or corrected facts. Or to paraphrase Steven Jay Gould:

“I believe the Evolution is a fundamental property of nature. It existed since it was created during the birth of the universe, and it will exist until the death of the universe. It worked before Charles Darwin first gave a scientific explanation for its behavior, and it worked before and after others came up with a better scientific explanation for evolution. Other scientists may provide a better explanation of evolution in the future, but evolution will continue to work until the end of the universe.” - Mark W. Dawson

* * * * *

Please Note – I have recently viewed a YouTube video, “By Design: Behe, Lennox, and Meyer on the Evidence for a Creator”, which discusses this issue in more detail. This discussion was more illuminating and detailed on this topic than the PragerU video, and while I still take issue with some of the points that they make, as I have written in this article, I found that I was more in agreement with them. Consequently, my objection to the PragerU video is that it is too short to provide a proper understanding of this topic. However, PragerU has released other videos by Dr. Meyer that provide additional information. These PragerU videos are:

• Evolution: Bacteria to Beethoven
• What’s Wrong with Atheism?
• What Is Intelligent Design?
• Aliens, the Multiverse, or God?
• How Did the Universe Begin?
• Are Religion and Science in Conflict?

In addition, Dr. Meyer has written a book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe, that presents a more comprehensive argument for his viewpoint.

While I still believe that most Intelligent Design proponents approach this topic from a theistic argument, which I find unconvincing, there are Intelligent Design proponents that approach this topic from a scientific argument, which I find is much more intriguing and convincing. It is within these scientific arguments that the topic of an Intelligent Designer should be considered.

* * * * *

As I mention in the beginning of this article, I am a firm believer in God. A God that created our universe and established its physical properties and physical laws. And a God that gave us science as the best means of explaining the physical properties and physical laws of the universe. A succinct summary of my beliefs is as follows:

In the Beginning:

1. Before the beginning, there was God.
2. And God was all there was, is and could be.
3. And God was conscience, intelligent and all-knowing.
4. And God was bored as it knew all there is, and was, and what will be.
5. And God decided to create a universe, a universe of matter and energy, and dark matter and dark energy. A universe of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and thermodynamics.
6. And this universe would evolve so that galaxies, stars, and planets would form, and life could be created and evolve on the planets.
7. And this life would also evolve so that conscience intelligent life would come forth.
8. And God gave this intelligent life the knowledge of good from evil, right from wrong, truth from falsehood, creative from destructive, reasonable from emotional, love from hate, wisdom from folly, and beauty from ugliness.
9. And God gave this intelligent life free choice so that it could decide how to behave based on this knowledge.
10. And God would observe their behavior and be entertained by it.
11. When the intelligent life died God would absorb its consciousness’ into its own, and God would know all the intelligence life knew.
12. After the intelligent life died God would judge them based on their words, deeds, and thoughts, and punish or reward their consciousness as appropriate.

I believe that God knows all there was, and all that is, but I do not believe that God knows all that will be. God knows physical properties and physical laws of the universe, so God knows what will happen as a result of these physical properties and physical laws of the universe. But God does not know what humans will do. This belief is a result of my belief that God gave humans "Free Will" for individuals to take any action they so desire. As individuals have the free will to take any action, God cannot know what action they will take. God only observes their words, deeds, and thoughts, and renders a judgment of them after their body passes away and their spirit joins with God (see number 9 through 12 above).

Disclaimer

Please Note - many academics, scientist and engineers would critique what I have written here as not accurate nor through. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intentions to be accurate or through, as I am not qualified to give an accurate nor through description. My intention was to be understandable to a layperson so that they can grasp the concepts. Academics, scientists, and engineers entire education and training is based on accuracy and thoroughness, and as such, they strive for this accuracy and thoroughness. I believe it is essential for all laypersons to grasp the concepts of this paper, so they make more informed decisions on those areas of human endeavors that deal with this subject. As such, I did not strive for accuracy and thoroughness, only understandability.

Most academics, scientist, and engineers when speaking or writing for the general public (and many science writers as well) strive to be understandable to the general public. However, they often fall short on the understandability because of their commitment to accuracy and thoroughness, as well as some audience awareness factors. Their two biggest problems are accuracy and the audience knowledge of the topic.

Accuracy is a problem because academics, scientist, engineers and science writers are loath to be inaccurate. This is because they want the audience to obtain the correct information, and the possible negative repercussions amongst their colleagues and the scientific community at large if they are inaccurate. However, because modern science is complex this accuracy can, and often, leads to confusion amongst the audience.

The audience knowledge of the topic is important as most modern science is complex, with its own words, terminology, and basic concepts the audience is unfamiliar with, or they misinterpret. The audience becomes confused (even while smiling and lauding the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer), and the audience does not achieve understandability. Many times, the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer utilizes the scientific disciplines own words, terminology, and basic concepts without realizing the audience misinterpretations, or has no comprehension of these items.

It is for this reason that I place understandability as the highest priority in my writing, and I am willing to sacrifice accuracy and thoroughness to achieve understandability. There are many books, websites, and videos available that are more accurate and through. The subchapter on “Further Readings” also contains books on various subjects that can provide more accurate and thorough information. I leave it to the reader to decide if they want more accurate or through information and to seek out these books, websites, and videos for this information.