Princeton President Defends Evolution

| 13 Comments

On December 1, 2005, Princeton University President Shirley M. Tilghman delivered the 2005 Romanes Lecture at the University of Oxford. Her lecture was entitled “Strange Bedfellows: Science, Politics and Religion”, and addressed both evolution and intelligent design. You can read the full lecture here, but I’ll also provide some excerpts.

“If cosmologists are deciphering the origins of the universe and our solar system in unprecedented ways, biologists are making enormous strides, thanks to the technology that was developed during the Human Genome Project, toward unlocking the origins of life on Earth. Yet here, too, science and politics have found themselves at loggerheads. It is impossible to ignore the increasing assertiveness of elements within American society who have challenged the validity of Darwin’s theory of natural selection and have lobbied for an alternative explanation, which they term “intelligent design,” to be taught in public schools alongside the principles of evolution. This is deeply disturbing, for the theory of natural selection is one of the two pillars, along with Mendel’s laws of inheritance, on which all of modern biology is built. It is virtually impossible to conduct biological research and not be struck by the power of Darwin’s theory of natural selection to shed light on the problem at hand. Time and again in the course of my career, I have encountered a mysterious finding that was explained by viewing it through the lens of evolutionary biology. The power of the theory of natural selection to illuminate natural phenomena, as well as its remarkable resilience to experimental challenge over almost 150 years, has led to its overwhelming acceptance by the scientific community.”

“Today, however, under the banner of “intelligent design,” Christian fundamentalists in the United States have launched a well-publicized assault on the theory of evolution, suggesting that the complexity and diversity of nature is not the product of random mutation and natural selection but rather of supernatural intent. Although exponents of intelligent design have been at pains to distance themselves from overtly religious interpretations of the universe, the intellectual roots of intelligent design can be traced to creationism, which holds that the natural world, including human beings in their present form, is the handiwork of a divine designer — namely, God. Biblical creationists contend that the world was created in accordance with the Book of Genesis — in six short days — while the followers of intelligent design eschew this literalism. They say that their goal is to detect empirically whether the “apparent design” in nature is genuine design, in other words, the product of an intelligent cause. They reject out of hand one of the central tenets of natural selection, namely, that biological change arises solely from selection upon random mutations over long periods of time. For those of you who are not conversant with the literature of intelligent design, the argument usually begins with Darwin himself, who said “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” From there, advocates such as Michael Behe, a professor of physical chemistry at Lehigh University, declare that “natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning.”

“What is wrong with this view? To begin with, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. Nature is the ultimate tinkerer, constantly co-opting one molecule or process for another purpose. This is spurred on by frequent duplications in the genome, which occur at random. Mutations can accumulate in the extra copy without disrupting the pre-existing function, and those that are beneficial have the potential to become fixed in the population. In other instances, entirely new functions evolve for existing proteins. My favorite example is lactate dehydrogenase, which functions as a metabolic enzyme in the liver and kidney in one context, and as one of the proteins that makes up the transparent lens of the eye in another. In the first cellular setting, the protein has a catalytic function; in the second, a structural one.”

“A common weapon that is used to advance the “theory” of intelligent design is to posit that evolutionary biology cannot explain everything — that there remains uncertainty in the fossil record and that there is as yet no consensus on the origin or nature of the first self-replicating organisms. This, too, reflects a basic misunderstanding about how science works, for, in fact, all scientific theories, even those that are approaching 150 years of age, are works in progress. Scientists live with uncertainty all the time and are not just reconciled to it but understand that it is an integral part of scientific progress. We know that for every question we answer, there is a new one to be posed. Indeed, the very word, “theory,” is misunderstood by many who take it to mean an “idea” that has no greater or lesser merit than any other idea. The fact that Darwin’s “ideas” on natural selection have stood the test of time through keen experimental challenge does not give his theory special status in their eyes. There are also those who exploit the fact that scientists often disagree over the interpretation of specific findings or the design of experiments to argue that nothing is settled and thus anything is possible. The fact of the matter is that fierce disagreement is the stuff of scientific inquiry, and the constant give-and-take is needed to test the mettle of our ideas and sharpen our thinking. It is not, as many would claim, prima facie evidence for deep fissures in the central tenets of natural selection.”

Now go and read the full speech.

13 Comments

From there, advocates such as Michael Behe, a professor of physical chemistry at Lehigh University

I believe that should be biochemistry.

Hunter R. Rawlings’ State of the (Cornell) University address is still available, and IMHO is more readable.

Comment #78915

Posted by ivy privy on February 11, 2006 10:14 AM (e)

From there, advocates such as Michael Behe, a professor of physical chemistry at Lehigh University

I believe that should be biochemistry.

Have we checked to make sure Behe isn’t actually a professor of engineering?

I believe that should be biochemistry.

Actually I think it was biocomedy.

Biblical creationists contend that the world was created in accordance with the Book of Genesis — in six short days — while the followers of intelligent design eschew this literalism. They say that their goal is to detect empirically whether the “apparent design” in nature is genuine design, in other words, the product of an intelligent cause.

Eschew? With few exceptions, like Behe’s lukewarm admission of an old earth and common descent, ID is a deliberate attempt to indirectly promote all the mutually contradictory “literal” interpretations of Genesis by diverting attention from their scientific flaws and contradictions.

If the major ID activists only wanted to detect design, they would just admit what they seem to know - that it’s still evolution, the fact and the theory. And instead of merely “distancing from” the creationisms, they’d refute them, instead of ripping off their standard, long-refuted misrepresentations of evolution.

While creationism may be an honest, if confused, belief, at least at the rank-and-file level, ID, including the designer-free phony “critical analysis” variant that the activists want taught, is a scam, pure and simple.

The speech said – “ It is impossible to ignore the increasing assertiveness of elements within American society who have challenged the validity of Darwin’s theory of natural selection and have lobbied for an alternative explanation. “

Darwin’s theory is not just about natural selection – random mutation is also an essential part. Only later does the speech mention random mutation.

” Time and again in the course of my career, I have encountered a mysterious finding that was explained by viewing it through the lens of evolutionary biology. “

Exactly. As I have pointed out many times, scientists can still use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

“Nature is the ultimate tinkerer, constantly co-opting one molecule or process for another purpose.”

This change of purpose is sometimes called “exaptation.” Supposedly, irreducible systems can be magically and spontaneously created by mixing and matching existing parts that had some other function outside the system. But exaptation does not change the fact that all the parts must simultaneously come together in their final forms in order to form the complete system, and that is unlikely. Often the parts had a completely different form when they existed outside the system, e.g., middle-ear bones supposedly came from jawbones. Also, a part that has an essential function outside the system would not be available to help form the complete irreducible system unless a duplicate or modified duplicate of that part is created.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 74, byte 74 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Nice speech!

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 70, byte 70 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Yes, it is a very nice speech indeed.

At the start of her speech, she forgot to add random mutations to natural selection.

Good points, Andy H..

PS – this message is not from Sir_Toejam. I am just using his handle as a test.

Hey, check it out: Larry Fafarman is posting under two different pseudonyms in a single thread – ‘Andy H’ and ‘B.F.’. Unless I’m mistaken, this is a first – I think he usually holds to one pseudonym within a single thread.

And, as further proof that this is indeed just a big game to him:

Exactly. As I have pointed out many times, scientists can still use evolution theory even while believing that all or part of it is untrue.

(My boldfacing)

He’s now overtly cross-referencing messages he posted under other names. Cool.

However, after something like 2 months of Larry doing this, I’m at a loss to say WHY he’s doing it. Some kind of bizarre masochism coupled with a desire for any kind of attention, even if it’s negative?

Larry never did take me up on my offer to give him his next couple pseudonyms. Dang.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jeffrey Shallit published on February 11, 2006 8:27 AM.

False Fear? was the previous entry in this blog.

The Wisdom of Parasites is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter