Lanugo and whale legs

The more I learn about the depth, magnitude, and elegance of evolutionary theory the more shocked I become that, according to polls, most Americans believe evolution is at least partially if not entirely false and that humans were created as we exist today and did not evolve from an ape-like ancestor. Now, according to another poll, when scientists were asked their opinion we find that virtually all of them, 97% in fact, believe in the validity of evolution and that humans evolved by the same processes as all other organisms. There is essentially no debate among the experts: evolution is a scientific fact that has been and is continually being supported by the evidence. But the majority of the American public is not on board with evolution and continually claim there is not enough evidence for it or that it is ‘just a theory’. So I will posit two accessible, straightforward examples in favor of evolution that I have found quite convincing, the sort of examples Americans have grown so adept at denying.

At around 22 weeks during human gestation the fetus begins to grow a coat of dark, downy hair, called lanugo, all over its body. Premature babies are most often covered in this lanugo. Whether the fetus continues to develop normally in the uterus or is born prematurely this coat of body hair is eventually lost and replaced by the shorter, finer vellus hair. Why do fetuses grow lanugo during gestation only to shed and replace it? Lanugo has no known developmental function. Since the uterus remains at normal body temperature the fetus does not need this thicker coat of hair for warmth and loses it before it comes to full term. The only reasonable explanation science can provide is that lanugo is an evolutionary relic. Primate fetuses also develop lanugo during gestation but do not lose it before birth and other animals such as elephants and cetaceans develop lanugo and shed it just as humans do. Lanugo is a vestige handed down from our hairy ancestors, a now useless characteristic that remains unexplainable outside of evolutionary theory.

If you were to go to a natural history museum and look at the mounted skeleton of a whale or dolphin you could observe a very odd thing. Beneath the vertebrae, suspended by wires, there is a small assemblage of undersized bones. These are the leg bones most cetaceans develop during gestation that are subsequently absorbed back into the body to remain unseen and utterly useless. Occasionally a whale or dolphin will be born with all four limbs visible but these are rare aberrations. Why do cetaceans grow hind limbs that they never use nor need? The only reasonable explanation science can provide is that these are an evolutionary relic. Cetaceans evolved from land-dwelling mammals, most likely artiodactyls, beginning in the Eocene and over millions of years they lost the the function of their hind limbs, which thus became the vestigial structure we see today. Whale legs are a vestige handed down from the land-dwelling ancestors of the cetaceans, a now useless structure unexplainable outside of evolutionary theory.

These are but two easily comprehensible and unambiguous examples that make arrant, logical sense only in the light of evolution. Vestigial characteristics such as lanugo and whale legs match up near perfectly with the indifferent, impartial, imperfect natural processes of evolutionary theory, in fact they are predictable. What other reasonable, empirical explanation for these examples could there be? Having transitioned from ardent evolution denier to eager evolutionist I appreciate full well both the desire and methods used to deny the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution. For my part the evidence simply became too overwhelming for denial to continue, but for most Americans the denial remains steadfast and even accessible, straightforward examples such as lanugo and whale legs do little to convince the public of the validity of evolutionary theory. Until we begin to respect the scientific method, act in accordance with the evidence, and value the consensus view among the experts America will remain one of the world’s only developed nations in which the majority denies the fact of evolution.

Religion as a means to posit certainty

As a skeptical, irreligious person I must admit that in many ways I am defined by my uncertainty with respect to the consequential and contentious issues. Does God exist? I don’t think so, but I’m not certain. Is there absolute morality? I’d like to think so, but I’m not certain. What are the exact processes of evolution? I understand a great deal about the evolutionary processes that take place, but I’m not certain. How did the universe come into being? Perhaps the physical universe had no beginning and will have no end, but I’m not certain. Is there good and evil? I’m inclined to think this is a humanly contrived dichotomy, but I’m not certain. Does life have meaning? I hope so, but I’m not certain. Can I trust my own thoughts? I believe so, but I’m not certain. By examining the evidence and attempting to evaluate it objectively I have come to a number of conclusions with respect to these consequential and contentious issues, but these are founded on probability, not certainty.

Throughout history religion has served as a means to posit certainty. Psychologically humans are pattern seekers, we observe the world and attempt to construct a framework with which we can assign meaning to what we see and experience within it. When we see the shape of a rabbit on the surface of the Moon it is not because there is actually a rabbit on the Moon it is because of pareidolia, the perception of significance in randomness. Religion is utilized in much the same way, as a framework with which humans can project significance on a universe that appears random. Similarly science serves as a framework for us to try and understand the universe, however religion and science differ on the matter of certainty. Within science even well-documented, widely observed, extensively researched scientific theories, such as gravitation or evolution, that are considered facts are not considered to be absolutely certain. Science is about probability, not certainty.

Within religion humans can find the certainty that science is not willing to offer them. All major religions offer absolute truth primarily through prophetic revelations and sacred texts. When you wonder why you are here, how you got here, and what you should do religion extends an invitation, an invitation to partake in the truth only it can provide. This is an aspect of religion that I find to be both disquieting and objectionable. Religious truths are always questionable, either on historical, scientific, or philosophical grounds, and claims of absolute certainty are a farce to support fideism. Faith is the antithesis of the scientific method and religious certainty can only be maintained through faith. Atheism is not based on the certainty of God’s nonexistence, that would be fideism, but on the improbability of God’s existence based on the evidence. Although I understand why so many need to find solace in religious truths, faith, and a belief in God I myself cannot on evidential and objective grounds. I’m just not certain.

The bacterial flagellum and the fallacy of irreducible complexity

On multiple occasions I have heard the bacterial flagellum (pictured above) used as evidence of irreducible complexity in biology, an argument often used by promoters of intelligent design. After examining this diagram it is not difficult to imagine why promoters of ID would claim it as evidence. The bacterial flagellum is a complex and rigidly organized appendage that superficially appears to be an intricately planned machine rather than an accidental biological structure. And if such an intricate thing looks too complex to be reduced or to have evolved from simpler forms, what other explanation remains except design? However, as with most arguments for intelligent design, evoking irreducible complexity is a fallacious action based on naive conceptions of biology and evolution.

Bacterial organisms have existed on Earth for the past 4 billion years, a very long time for evolutionary processes to be taking place, and have adapted to live in virtually every conceivable environment. Populations of bacteria grow exponentially, with billions of generations produced in a relatively brief period of time, allowing natural selection to have a very strong influence. Evolutionary biologists have theorized that large populations of organisms are more readily influenced by natural selection and that prokaryotes, bacteria and archaea, more readily exchange genes amongst each other. Therefore a large population of prokaryotes evolving over a vast period of time would predictably possess very intricate and complex biological structures. The bacterial flagellum is no surprise or dilemma for evolutionary biologists, in fact it is expected.

Utilization of the bacterial flagellum, or any other so-called irreducibly complex biological structure, as evidence of design is itself an evidence, evidence of a clear misunderstanding of biology and ignorance of evolutionary processes. Anyone who would challenge the modern theory of evolution with intelligent design either does not understand the widely accepted, peer reviewed science they are challenging or has been blinded by their religious convictions. After all ID is a religious view, not a scientific theory, supported almost exclusively by Christians, not scientists. Irreducible complexity is just one in a long line of fallacies promoted by the ID camp that poses no serious challenge to legitimate science.

Intelligent design and its supposed evidences are intellectually dangerous because they provide the public a falsified view of biology and evolution and the religious an erroneous vindication in denying the prevailing views of science. None of the discoveries in the fields of evolutionary biology, genetics, paleontology, etc have done anything except substantiate the accidental, impersonal, material processes of evolution as the best explanation for the origin and development of life. Irreducible complexity is a product of scientific illiteracy and religious conviction, not good science, and denying the true origins of astounding, beautifully complex biological structures like the bacterial flagellum only diminishes those astounding and beautiful qualities.

My cosmological quandary

At the risk of appearing lazy, I thought I would posit a question this week rather than post my normal musings and ramblings:

If it could be empirically proven that the physical universe as we know it arose ex materia, out of some preexistent matter, rather than ex nihilo, out of nothing, how/why would this effect your personal theology (if it would at all)?

Obviously this question is hypothetical, since as of now nothing is empirically known about the very early universe before the Big Bang, and is primarily directed towards those who hold to a personal theology, although as an irreligious person I find this question to be both interesting and consequential. I ask it because I have often heard the concept of creation ex nihilo used as a foundation of faith and am curious to hear how faith would be affected if this concept was no longer a viable option. Any and all responses would be greatly appreciated.

A dangerous mind

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum recently won the primaries in Alabama and Mississippi, solidifying himself as one of two serious contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. Early on in his campaign Santorum was behind in the polls and many people, including myself, did not consider him to be a significant candidate. However over the past months he has gained popularity among many on the Right, a majority of these being Evangelicals and traditional Roman Catholics, due to his fundamental religious and socially conservative views. Although Mitt Romney remains the seemingly inevitable Republican nominee the recent popularization of Rick Santorum says a great deal about the values of the politically conservative in America.

The views championed by Rick Santorum form a virtual laundry list of the most misogynistic, discriminatory, sanctimonious, antiquated, and suppressive political positions in the American repertoire. In 2001, as senator, he preposed an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act, now known as the Santorum Amendment, that would promote intelligent design and call into question the legitimacy of evolution in public schools and was placed in the language of the act, although it carried no weight of law. By preposing this amendment Santorum clearly aligned himself with an irrational, pseudoscientific minority and exposed not only his own scientific illiteracy but also his outright rejection of the proven consensus view within the scientific community.

In February Santorum expressed his opinion on higher education in an interview with Glenn Beck. He called colleges “indoctrination mills” where students are purposefully secularized and claimed this was the reason President Obama had called for more Americans to seek higher education. According to Santorum universities are dangerous because they call faith into question and attempt to inform young adults in a secular, ideologically neutral setting. For him nothing could be worse than exposing the religious beliefs of America’s youth to the light of reason and critical analysis. What exactly his alternative to the modern university system would be is not clear to me, but whatever such a mind could envision could do nothing but harm higher education in this country.

Regarding contraception and sexual freedom Santorum’s views are positively Medieval. In October of 2011 he gave an interview to an Evangelical blog called Caffeinated Thoughts. In that interview he stated clearly that contraception is “not okay” because according to his personal interpretation of religious morality using contraception allows people license to engage in sexual activities that are abnormal, such as sex outside of marriage. According to Santorum it should be the president’s responsibility to regulate the personal, sexual lives of the American citizenship and therefore he would hinder the availability of contraception, eliminate proper sex education, and deny homosexuals the right to marry. To promulgate his personal, religious agenda he would attempt to abuse the presidency and infringe on the basic rights of Americans.

A great deal more could be said about Rick Santorum’s views on the separation of church and state (he doesn’t think it should be absolute), foreign policy (he would bomb Iran if they did not comply to American demands), environmental issues (he called the consensus scientific view on climate change “junk science”), and energy (he would “drill everywhere” for oil). I believe it can be said with certainty that this man’s mind is dangerous and therefore I could not be more thankful that Rick Santorum’s chances of obtaining the Republican nomination are very slim. What disturbs me is that a former United States senator and presidential candidate could be so close-minded, prejudiced, and utterly dim. And what disturbs me even more is that so many people in this country could entertain the notion that such a man should be president.