Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


The Magical Thinking Behind Evolutionary Psychology

posted by David Klinghoffer
I like Robert Wright and enjoyed his recent book The Evolution of God. One thing I value about him is his candor. Thus in his New York Times op-ed yesterday proposing a “grand bargain” between religion and science (i.e., Darwinism), he can’t help but blurt out what would be asked in this bargain even of religious believers who think they’ve already managed to square God with Darwin. Such believers, notably adherents of “theistic evolution,” with their minimalist view of the Deity, should be prepared to “scale back their conception of God’s role in creation.” If I’m reading Bob Wright correctly, even the theism-lite of theistic evolution can be reconciled with a full-bodied Darwinism only at the cost of further “scaling back” any remotely traditional estimation of God’s role in the history of life. Have I not said that to you before? Now do you believe me?
Wright is smart, honest and likable, yet, I think, misses some key points. For one, contrary to the first sentence in his essay, there’s no “war” going on between science and religion. There is, however, a struggle between two visions of science — one that keeps its mind open to evidence of purpose being worked out in detail (“intelligent design”) in nature, and one that rules out such evidence on principle (represented by a range of perspectives from theistic evolution to atheist materialism). The former vision asks questions of evolutionary theory that the latter can’t answer. How did the first life begin? Where did the information coded initially in the genome come from? Given that this same information is grossly inadequate to explain the levels of organization that most interest Robert Wright and other believers in evolutionary psychology, namely those levels associated traditionally with the operation of the soul, and given that natural selection has only genetic information to operate on, how can Darwinian theory explain the development of those features of human life that set us apart from animals? For that matter, how does it explain certain levels of organization in animals that simply can’t be explained by DNA coding for proteins? In genetic terms, what exactly is being selected?
We were discussing astrology earlier today. On evolutionary psychology and its peculiar parallels with that ancient art, David Berlinski had this to say several years ago in The Weekly Standard:

As so often happens in the sciences, molecular biology has resolved its mysteries by magical thinking. Whatever the process, it is DNA, according to official doctrine, that is still crucial, still in charge, an agency capable of achieving every biological effect. Evolutionary biologists now assign to the human genome full responsibility for altruism, date rape, aggression, eating disorders, and a taste for Mansfield Park. The truth is we do not know how the genome achieves any effect beyond the molecular. Although more powerful by far than astrology, molecular biology is not appreciably different in kind, the various celestial houses having about as much to do with human affairs as the various genes.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(26)
post a comment
Glen Davidson

posted August 24, 2009 at 4:55 pm


one that keeps its mind open to evidence of purpose being worked out in detail (“intelligent design”) in nature, and one that rules out such evidence on principle (represented by a range of perspectives from theistic evolution to atheist materialism).

You mean that evolutionists deny purpose in archaeology?
Oh, no, that’s not it, you just mean that they do what any honest person does, accepts observable causes for observable effects.
If you have any evidence that I do anything else, David, present it. Otherwise, I have every right to consider you to be a liar (except in your world, where evidence doesn’t count).
And ID isn’t open to “evidence of purpose,” it is closed to the evidence that “nature” lacks evidence of purpose, trying to manipulate terms and to flat-out lie about the opposition in order to excuse their lack of evidence and lack of good-faith considerations of the existing evidence.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 24, 2009 at 10:30 pm


David: If I’m reading Bob Wright correctly, even the theism-lite of theistic evolution can be reconciled with a full-bodied Darwinism only at the cost of further “scaling back” any remotely traditional estimation of God’s role in the history of life.
By your own definition, the fact that you accept that the six days of Genesis are not literally true and that science is right in positing a multi-billion-year-old universe means that you have “scaled back” the traditional view of God’s role and are yourself purveying “theism lite”. In any case, proponents of YEC would certainly see it that way, wouldn’t they?
For anyone except an absolute Scriptural literalist, accepting evolution or the heliocentric cosmos or an enormously old cosmos is not a matter of “scaling back” belief, but of using our God-given intellect and understanding to see the universe as it is, not as we’d like it to be. As a said on a previous post, truth is one. Only literalists and fideists have trouble seeing that.
As to Wright, I’ve read some of his stuff, including the lengthy article in The Atlantic awhile back that synopsized the book, and I’m really not at all impressed by him. The article you link to is a good example: his thinking is hopelessly muddled. He talks as if he thinks there is some guiding force in history, and goes on and on about “non-zero-sum” games (and frankly, as someone with some acquaintance with game theory, I don’t think he understands the concept as well as he thinks he does), and then turns around and says he’s agnostic.
Likewise with Steven Pinker, quoted in the article as saying, “There may be a sense in which some moral statements aren’t just … artifacts of a particular brain wiring but are part of the reality of the universe, even if you can’t touch them and weigh them….they’re really true independent of our existence. I mean, they’re out there and in some sense — it’s very difficult to grasp — but we discover them, we don’t hallucinate them.” I mean, for a man who claims to be an atheist, this is a weird statement! He seems to be positing a transcendent basis for ethics that really out there, which is what has traditionally been called “God”–but in other writings he’s an atheist, disbelieves in a soul, etc.
I mean, if you’re going to open the door to the supra-rational, the transcendent, the world beyond this one, but insist that it can’t possibly involve God or souls or spirits or religion, then how can you expect me to take you seriously? Which is why I don’t take Wright or Pinker seriously on these issues. It’s the same on the other end of it: someone who claims to be scientific but disputes clear experimental evidence, as IDers do, is involved in the same type of cognitive dissonance and isn’t making a serious argument.
Though I disagree with Jerry Coyne on many issues, I think his review of Wright’s book here at The New Republic makes some pretty good points about Wright’s fuzziness.
As to evolutionary psychology and morals, evolution may have some things to say about why we act the way we do, and to the extent that such things can be demonstrated, I have no problem with it as such. In general, I would hold that we will never fully understand our own consciousness by scientific or non-scientific means. In this I follow the so-called New Mysterians, many of whom, I would point out, are agnostics or atheists (the point being that this view is not a means of pushing religion under other names, but a serious viewpoint).
Thus, I am highly skeptical of people like Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett who think that consciousness can be described evolutionarily or by any other scientific means. My non-believing friends and colleagues are of course free to disagree with me on this. The point is that I take a lot of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology with a grain of salt for scientific and philosophical, not religious, reasons.
Finally, I’d point out that you seem a bit muddled yourself in the last paragraph. You seem to be comparing astrology unfavorably to evolutionary psychology, right after a post or two in which you’ve seemed to approve of astrology, in principle at least. Can’t you even be consistent about what you do and don’t like?



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted August 24, 2009 at 10:35 pm


“And ID isn’t open to “evidence of purpose,” it is closed to the evidence that “nature” lacks evidence of purpose…”
While I’m not necessarily an ID proponent, I want to comment on this.
Considering that humans, being a part of nature, have themselves the capabilities of teleology and purpose, I find the all-too-common assertion that nature lacks purpose to be non-sequitur and completely without merit.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 24, 2009 at 10:58 pm


@Turmarion: “Though I disagree with Jerry Coyne on many issues…” May I ask which author(s) are your favorite, with whom you agree with the most? That way, instead of trying to find all your posts or asking you a bunch of questions, I can get a feel of what you think by just reading a book.
@Glen: Glen, can you provide any examples of “good-faith considerations of the existing evidence” vis-a-vis evolutionary psychology? Once one reads a sufficiently large bunch of published theories that causes a guy to remark, “and they call this science?!”, one starts to have second thoughts about the whole enterprise.
@Daniel: “I find the all-too-common assertion that nature lacks purpose to be non-sequitur and completely without merit.”
Unless our sense of purpose is just a mirage; our free-will being just a delusion. (No, I don’t believe this to be the case.)



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 24, 2009 at 11:32 pm


Your Name: Here goes.
Re religion and evolution: Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God is excellent, one of the best in the genre. Francis Collins’s The Language of God is quite good, too. Collins, by the way, has a blog here at Beliefnet, “Science and the Sacred”, which is very good.
Re evolution in general: While I disagree strongly with Dawkins’s hard-shell atheism and his (in my view incorrect) assertion that evolution necessarily entails atheism, he nevertheless gives clear and lucid explanations of how evolution works (except when he gets into sociobiology and the so-called “selfish gene”, which are controversial topics even in the evolutionary biology community and which I think are rather off-the-wall).
The late, great Stephen Jay Gould also wrote very well on evolutionary biology. He, too, was an atheist, but was not of the strident, militant stripe as Dawkins is. Once again, while disagreeing with his theology, or lack thereof, I have nothing but respect for his science.
For science and religion in general: John Polkinghorne and Stanley Jaki, both priests (the former Anglican, the latter Catholic) with advanced degrees in modern physics, have written many excellent books. Rupert Sheldrake is really loopy in a lot of ways, but he does make some interesting points in some of his books.
C.S. Lewis’s book The Problem of Pain, while not about science and faith, has a brief discussion of the evolution of man in light of tradition that is pretty good. His book Miracles deals with the possibility of, well, miracles, and The Abolition of Man and Mere Christianity have also influenced me quite a bit.
How’s that for a start?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 25, 2009 at 12:18 am


You went above and beyond the call of — of request. Thanks.



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted August 25, 2009 at 11:26 am


“And ID isn’t open to “evidence of purpose,” it is closed to the evidence that “nature” lacks evidence of purpose…”
While I’m not necessarily an ID proponent, I want to comment on this.
Considering that humans, being a part of nature, have themselves the capabilities of teleology and purpose, I find the all-too-common assertion that nature lacks purpose to be non-sequitur and completely without merit.

And I find your inability to understand my use of scare quote to be completely without merit, and your projection of your own failure to understand clear markings is typical for those who attack without reason. Even had I not clearly marked the ambiguity of the use of the term “nature,” I actually brought up archaeology as a place where we do indeed match up “purpose” with effect.
As for “Your Name,” you have no reason to presuppose that I would defend evolutionary psychology, which in fact I tend to disparage in practice, though not in principle.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

Mergatroid

posted August 25, 2009 at 12:35 pm


Glen: ” in fact I tend to disparage (evolutionary psychology) in practice, though not in principle.”
David, would it be fair to say that you’re the same way with theistic evolution? If so, I think that saying so would get Turmarion off your back.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 25, 2009 at 8:57 pm


The truth is we do not know how the genome achieves any effect beyond the molecular. Although more powerful by far than astrology, molecular biology is not appreciably different in kind, the various celestial houses having about as much to do with human affairs as the various genes.
All Berlinski is saying here is that since he can’t figure out the connection, there must not be one.
So he makes a bogus argument against a caricature of evolutionary psychology; standard operating procedure for DI fellows.



report abuse
 

Mark

posted August 25, 2009 at 10:12 pm


Eh, so many evolutionary psychologists have already made a caricature of science.
@Gabriel: “All Berlinski is saying here is that since he can’t figure out the connection, there must not be one.”
“Since we can’t figure out the use of parts of DNA, we’ll call it Junk.”
“Since we can’t figure out the use of this organ, we’ll call it vestigial.”
Many scientists have this problem too, y’see.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 25, 2009 at 11:17 pm


Mark:Eh, so many evolutionary psychologists have already made a caricature of science.
Yeah, Mark, I’m sure you’ve spent SO MUCH TIME reading the works of evolutionary psychologists, and you have SO MUCH EDUCATION in BIOLOGY that you have an INFORMED opinion.
“Since we can’t figure out the use of parts of DNA, we’ll call it Junk.”
“Since we can’t figure out the use of this organ, we’ll call it vestigial.”

And all these claims are PROVISIONAL, like all scientific claims.
Incidentally, Mark, would you care to explain why an amoeba needs 220 times as large a genome as humans have? Do explain to us why “the Designer” needs to put so much more information in them.



report abuse
 

Mark

posted August 25, 2009 at 11:40 pm


Obviously, the purpose is to have evolutionists scratch their head in wonder, leaving them nothing else to say except to challenge believers to explain why God would do such a thing — but then you call such an activity “idol worship” (8:53 post at http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/08/ibn-ezra-agrees-an-apikoros-heretic-is-one-who-rejects-intelligent-design.html#comment-1818830 )



report abuse
 

Mark

posted August 26, 2009 at 12:58 am


“And all these claims are PROVISIONAL, like all scientific claims.”
If they were termed “provisional junk DNA” or “provisional vestigial organs,” then you’d have a stronger case.
Note to David: The Captcha program (the spam-preventing verification program) you have on your site stinks. h’s look like b’s, e’s look like c’s etc. I type it in wrong about 1/3 of the time. Can you try to find a better program



report abuse
 

Mergatroid

posted August 26, 2009 at 1:12 am


I was curious to find an answer to your question, “would you care to explain why an amoeba needs 220 times as large a genome as humans have?”, since I surely couldn’t think of any answer, from ANY standpoint, secular or religious. So, I decided to search for an explanation from a creationist point of view, and I may have found one:
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200808.htm#20080823a
Enjoy fisking it.



report abuse
 

Mergatroid

posted August 26, 2009 at 1:14 am


Err, when I said “from a creationist point of view,” I meant to say “from a creationist.” That’s different. He doesn’t give a divine reason for the genome puzzle, but focusses instead on trashing the evolutionist reasons.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 26, 2009 at 10:12 am


Mark: f they were termed “provisional junk DNA” or “provisional vestigial organs,” then you’d have a stronger case.
Strictly speaking, the scenario of the Matrix could conceivably be true, so it may be that everything I experience, including making this post, is an illusion. So maybe I should not say, “I’m making a post to Kingdom of Priests,” but “Provisionally, as far as I can tell, assuming I’m not plugged into the Matrix, I’m making a post to Kingdom of Priests.” Maybe I should preface every statement of what I do with “Provisionally, as far as I can tell, assuming I’m not plugged into the Matrix…” Of course, this would be unspeakably absurd.
Similarly, in science everything is to some extent provisional, even the firmest and most established truths. Every once in awhile the most “obvious” and cherished truths fall to new data–the famous Michelson-Morley experiment that showed the non-existence of the luminiferous ether is an excellent example. However, this kind of thing rarely happens, and even in rapidly changing fields it would get tiresome to preface every single statement with “provisional” or “as far as we know” or some such. Working scientists worth their salt know this without having to say it all the time.
This, btw, is just one more contrast with proponents of ID, who never, to my knowledge, postulate that their hypothesis of a Designer is “provisional”.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 26, 2009 at 9:48 pm


to challenge believers to explain why God would do such a thing — but then you call such an activity “idol worship”
No, what I call “idol worship” is when believers anthropomorphize God by ascribing human motivations to Him.
Science is a human endeavor; an attempt to explain the universe in a way that makes to human intellects. Putting human limitations on God’s powers, intentions, and methods, because otherwise what science says happened doesn’t make sense to you, is to mind idolatry, or maybe superstition is a better word.
You don’t like the thought that God might have used Darwinian evolution to make Man. You deny that He has the power and the foresight to do it that way.
I notice, of course, that you have no way to answer the amoeba question.
The vast majority of human DNA is never translated into proteins, and much of it consists of garbled, but recognizable, copies of other genes. It is very reasonable to describe such DNA as junk. Very little of it can be shown to have any function, and much of it can be shown to not possibly have any function.
Unless much of what we know about how genes are translated to proteins is really, really wrong; and of course that is possible, but it seems unlikely.
But cdesign proponentsists have no compunctions about saying “if science can’t figure out EVERYTHING, that’s the same as figuring out NOTHING”.
That’s exactly what you are saying about junk DNA. You are saying that as long as some of it holds any possibility of having any function, you’re allowed to say “God did it”; even though none of you ever figure out the functions, you leave that to the working biologists and don’t dirty your hands with actual research. God of the Gaps, indeed.



report abuse
 

Mark

posted August 26, 2009 at 11:15 pm


“You don’t like the thought that God might have used Darwinian evolution to make Man. You deny that He has the power and the foresight to do it that way.”
That is incorrect. I’m not against it in principle.
“I notice, of course, that you have no way to answer the amoeba question.”
Y’see, I can come up with any number of creative divine explanations, but you have no right to respond to any of them, for your responses will be treading in theology, not science.
“No, what I call “idol worship” is when believers anthropomorphize God by ascribing human motivations to Him.”
You’ve got a peculiar definition of idol worship. I mean, if the Bible is really against idol worship, yet has no problem saying that God is forgiving, kind, etc, then…
“But cdesign proponentsists have no compunctions about saying “if science can’t figure out EVERYTHING, that’s the same as figuring out NOTHING”.”
That’s just goofy.
And can’t you realize that most of the scientists who treated junk DNA as junk were HAMPERING research?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 27, 2009 at 12:08 am


And can’t you realize that most of the scientists who treated junk DNA as junk were HAMPERING research?
No, they weren’t. Because they didn’t just put in a drawer labeled “junk” and ignore it. That’s what you THINK happened because you don’t read scientists, you only read people like Klinghoffer.
If “junk DNA” is really junk, there are a lot of questions to ask. Why is it in the genome? Why does it stay in the genome? Is it really all that useless? Does it have other implications for an organism’s success even though it is not transcribed? Is natural selection capable of cleaning up the “junk DNA” and if not, why not? Is the “junk DNA” sometimes “promoted” to the status of functional genes?
Scientists NEVER quit studying it, and because of that SCIENTISTS, not one of which was affiliated with the Discovery Institute, discovered that some of it has a use after all.
Leaving all that aside, so-called “junk DNA” has been used to establish evolutionary relationships.
So it’s not like scientists called it “junk” and quit researching it, and thereby “hampered research”. That is an out-and-out lie of the type DI fellows specialize in.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 27, 2009 at 12:26 am


See, Mark, you think “junk DNA” meant scientists thought it was not worth studying and did nothing–and that is not true.
Susumu Ohno invented the term in 1972, and he has been among the many scientists continually investigating “junk DNA” since then. He thinks that the size of an species’ genome has something to do with how likely its lineage is to diverge into many new species, and he has investigated the “junk DNA” of many species–including the Amazon lungfish, with a genome 35 times the size of that of a typical mammal.
So it’s not as though he said, “Gentlemen, this DNA is all garbage and no one needs to investigate it”. Though you are trying hard to give us that impression.



report abuse
 

Mark

posted August 27, 2009 at 1:32 am


“So it’s not like scientists called it “junk” and quit researching it, and thereby “hampered research”. That is an out-and-out lie of the type DI fellows specialize in.”
You conveniently lump all scientists together, as if they’re of one mind. Some scientists believed it was junk, putting the brakes on their research, and some didn’t believe it was junk (probably those whose religious friends were spurring them keep on looking for function (smirk)), and /they’re/ the ones who made the discoveries.
Gabe, any thoughts about the creationsafaris link above?



report abuse
 

Mark

posted August 27, 2009 at 1:37 am


@ Gabriel: “Leaving all that aside, so-called “junk DNA” has been used to establish evolutionary relationships.”
It’s been used to THEORIZE evolutionary relationships.
It’s been used to ESTABLISH /homologous/ relationships.
Get that straight!



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 27, 2009 at 2:46 am


and some didn’t believe it was junk (probably those whose religious friends were spurring them keep on looking for function (smirk)), and /they’re/ the ones who made the discoveries.
THE EXACT SAME SCIENTIST who called it “junk DNA” has been RESEARCHING IT FOR 40 YEARS AFTER HE CALLED IT THAT. That was the WHOLE POINT of giving you his name.
You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. You never heard of Susumu Ohno or his research before I mentioned his name, now did you?
(probably those whose religious friends were spurring them keep on looking for function (smirk)), and /they’re/ the ones who made the discoveries.
Yeah, because YOU KNOW ALL ABOUT WHO MADE THE DISCOVERIES.
Can you even name any of the JOURNALS?
You don’t help your cause by making things up, you know.
It’s been used to THEORIZE evolutionary relationships.
It’s been used to ESTABLISH /homologous/ relationships.

If two species aren’t descended from a common ancestor, why would they have DNA in common, Mark?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 27, 2009 at 2:56 am


Gabe, any thoughts about the creationsafaris link above?
Typically for creationists, they misrepresent what the papers say. What else is new?
They take a disagreement about science and they present it as a falsification of science. If they have the education to understand the papers they cite, then we can only describe this as “lying”. If they don’t understand the papers they have no business commenting. The papers say only that an organism whose genome was thought to be relatively unchanged from ancient times, turns out not to be.
In addition, the creationists attempt no explanation for why “the Designer” would give this organisms genes it has no use for. They just say it somehow proves evolution to be false.



report abuse
 

Mark

posted August 27, 2009 at 8:26 am


“If two species aren’t descended from a common ancestor, why would they have DNA in common, Mark?”
I know you’ve heard of convergent evolution, so I’m surprised you asked this question. If you claim that common DNA proves descent (or shared descent) of any two creatures, then the experts in convergent evolution would be taking you to task for saying that.
“In addition, the creationists attempt no explanation for why “the Designer” would give this organisms genes it has no use for.”
First of all, I see how you did not address my THEORIZE vs ESTABLISH comment. You simply bounced it back to me. You’re saying “I don’t know how evolution did it, but it can’t be creation because you can’t give me a reason why God would do such a thing.” You’re guilty of the same thing you’re accusing the author of!
Besides, how would such an answer satisfy you? You’ve made it clear that you think it’s wrong to even endeavor to answer such a question. You called it akin to idol worship, the person assuming he can read God’s mind. Stop asking for things you say shouldn’t be answered. And if I did give an answer, you’d be treading on theological ground, not a place for you.
“THE EXACT SAME SCIENTIST who called it “junk DNA” has been RESEARCHING IT FOR 40 YEARS AFTER HE CALLED IT THAT. That was the WHOLE POINT of giving you his name.”
“Researching it” is NOT the same as “researching the FUNCTION of it.” I knew some stuff about Ohno, thank you very much. Take a look to see what Ulrich Wolf wrote: “His research activities can roughly be divided into an earlier more experimental and a later more theoretical period…. This period of his life indeed marks his changing devotion from narrower studies predominantly in experimental cytogenetics, to more general problems of biology including mechanisms of evolution, development and cell differentiation.”



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 27, 2009 at 7:29 pm


I know you’ve heard of convergent evolution, so I’m surprised you asked this question. If you claim that common DNA proves descent (or shared descent) of any two creatures, then the experts in convergent evolution would be taking you to task for saying that.
Oh, are you one of these EXPERTS, Mark? If you were, you would know that convergent evolution has NOTHING to do with the percentage of DNA shared between organisms. Once more you prove that you know absolutely nothing about biology. It’s the difference between analogous and homologous.
An octopus eye is convergent with a human eye, but the DNA that codes for eyes in each are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. That is because mollusk development and human development don’t read DNA in the same way. Likewise, birds and bats don’t share “wing DNA” even though bat wings and bird wings are convergent. Snakes and legless lizards don’t share “legless DNA”.
DNA is not the same “language” from organism to organism. If you were less ignorant, you’d be terribly embarrassed by saying such a stupid thing.
This is why the “junk DNA” is used to ESTABLISH evolutionary relationships; since it’s not expressed in the phenotype, presumably there is no selection pressure on it, it just gets “noisier” over time as mutations accumulate at random. More closely related organisms should have more highly correlated “junk DNA”. Of three related organisms, you should be able to tell from the correlations which split off earliest from the common lineage.
First of all, I see how you did not address my THEORIZE vs ESTABLISH comment.
Because scientists don’t use the word ‘theorize’ the way you do. They don’t use the words ‘work’, ‘power’, or ‘energy’ the way you do either.
I didn’t need any more proof that you are utterly ignorant of what scientists do, but you keep saying ignorant things.
A “theory” is a massive body of scientific work usually contributed to over several human lifetimes often by thousands of people. Only a very rare scientist, such as Newton or Einstein or Maxwell, could be said to “theorize”, and even then they only scratch the surface of the theory.
Evolutionary relationships are ESTABLISHED in the context of evolutionary THEORY, to which people like you have provided no scientific alternative. Did the scientists SEE the organisms evolve in real time? Of course not. They know it in the same way you know there was a such a person as Julius Caesar.
I knew some stuff about Ohno, thank you very much. Take a look to see what Ulrich Wolf wrote: “His research activities can roughly be divided into an earlier more experimental and a later more theoretical period…. This period of his life indeed marks his changing devotion from narrower studies predominantly in experimental cytogenetics, to more general problems of biology including mechanisms of evolution, development and cell differentiation.”
More proof that you get all your science at second and third hand. Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.
My point stands: when you said that “junk DNA” meant that people quit researching it, except for a few “closet creationists”, you were making that up. It’s not true of Ohno, and it’s not true for his colleagues, and never was.
The fact that you feel free to make things up whenever it is convenient for your argument tells the people who are reading this little exchange that you know nothing whatever of the science you criticize, and that you do not attempt to argue in good faith.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.