A human being has an estimated 30,000 genes or less, much less than previous estimates of 80,000 to 140,000. Some species of rice have 50,000 genes and up to 70,000 by some estimates. This means that rice potentially has double the amount of genetic information that we do. From this it may be extrapolated that rice, at least at the macromolecular level, is more complex than a human being. However the structure and function of genes are virtually identical across the spectrum of organisms on this planet. Rice may have 40,000 more genes than a human, but how those genes form, look, and operate is astoundingly similar.
Based on the multiplicity of evidence, the debate over the truth of the universal common descent of life is over. All of the major discoveries in genetics and molecular biology in the past 100 years have supported the theory of universal common descent by means of evolutionary processes. The astounding similarity of genes among organisms, which affects our fundamental understanding of biological complexity, is just one example. In many ways the similarities of life are more remarkable than life’s boundless variations.
Evolution requires no higher power, in fact denoting some sort of intelligence in the evolutionary process is illogical. Evolution as it is understood by modern science has often been a clumsy, wasteful process. Returning to the field of genetics, only 1 to 2 percent of DNA in the human genome is utilized to encode protein sequences. 98 percent of human DNA is effectively junk, that is it has no known biological function. At points in the evolution of our species this now inert DNA may have been utilized but eventually lost its utility. This evidence makes no logical sense if an intelligent designer is assumed, unless it is also assumed that the intelligent designer purposefully designed humans to appear as though we were designed unintelligently.
The modern theory of evolution rightfully has a great impact on modern religion and philosophy. Science has always had a tendency to infringe on the territory of ideology. In its most idealistic sense science is the pursuit of truth, and is therefore inherently philosophical. Many theologians and philosophers have expressed a great deal of chagrin when science has supposedly overstepped its bounds. Some scientists have claimed that science and ideology, particularly religious ideology, are not in conflict because they do not seek the same knowledge.
Hardline adherents from most major religions and I have one thing I believe we can agree on: science and ideology do come into conflict with each other. As science explores, analyzes, and answers more and more of the foundational questions concerning our universe religion must continually reevaluate and adjust its position. As science charges forward into new vistas of discovery and knowledge religion is left lurching behind attempting, most often unsuccessfully, to keep up.
The significant discoveries of genetics, molecular biology, geology, paleontology, zoology, and evolutionary biology are continually denied by fundamental religious individuals and groups. Staggering discoveries in the field of genetics, which provide us with the most convincing evidence for evolution to date, are meaningless when ideology trumps the truth. If the universality of common descent is acknowledged then the notion of intelligent design should be abandoned. The proof is in your genes.
The problem here is that no amount of evidence to the contrary can convince a faithful religious adherent that they have been mistaken. Faith is not evidence based at all. It is the blind belief in something unknowable, invisible, unprovable, unscientific, and empirically outrageous. That’s where ideology has a leg up on science, in a manner of speaking: nothing can disprove it, because it wasn’t based on proof in the first place. A person needs to realize that his or her experience in the world of matter, science, and applying his or her reason to their beliefs is better than faith in order to come to grips with facts such as those you have presented here.
You’re absolutely right about faith having no connection to provable or testable evidence, which is why pseudo-scientific claims like intelligent design have no place in science. People are not going to give up their faith based on evidence so all I would ask is that they keep their faith out of evidential fields such as genetics, evolutionary biology, essentially all of science. Of course this is too much to ask if the basis of your reality is faith. It’s an immensely frustrating scenario.
Hey Sam,
This is an interesting post. I admit that I am almost completely ignorant when it comes to genetics so some of your terminology is foreign to me. I guess I am somewhat confused about where you are going with this post. Are you making a case for the interconnectedness of humans with all other forms of life? Or, are you trying to make the case that, because of what we know about the evolutionary process, we should abandon any and all theistic claims? Or, is it both?
If the former, I suppose I would be okay agreeing with you. Mostly because I don’t really know enough to disagree. Regardless of the connections humans may have with other forms of life, humans are unique in certain aspects. Our thoughts and behaviors are often (though certainly not always) foreign to any other life form that I know.
If the latter, you said (allow me to paraphrase) that the majority of human DNA is “junk” and that this doesn’t really make sense from a creator-created perspective. I would agree. But, I honestly don’t think it makes sense the other way either. If my body is a result of nature, why do I have parts that are useless for my nature? Am I completely missing your point here? It is very possible since, as I said, I have no background in genetics at all.
-Jake
You aren’t completely missing the point. I am not necessarily attacking faith claims here (such as theism) but bad science. I believe intelligent design is bad science because it inserts unnecessary and illogical factors into our understanding of the evolutionary process. Intelligent design is a pseudo-scientific theory that is built on ideology, not scientific research, and so my attack is not against faith itself but against the attempt to insert faith-based claims into a scientific process in which they have no value.
Why do you have parts that are useless for your nature? Because evolution is a natural, and therefore imperfect, process. Disease is a consequence of that imperfect process. “Junk” DNA does not have an overtly positive or negative effect, it is simply leftovers from evolutionary development that has lost some utility it most likely had in the past. Many mutations, in humans as well as other organisms, can be potentially harmful or helpful and both can be passed on to successive generations. Evolution is not an intelligent force but over time beneficial mutations and characteristics that aid survival will naturally dominate over harmful ones, although not eliminate them.
Thanks for the questions, Jake.
Interesting. Thanks for your clarification. I agree that it is an imperfect process so it would make sense that not all parts of a human are “necessary.” Yet, other things that have been harmful to us have only been so because we made it harmful. There are certain drugs and experiments and chemicals that humans have created over time (“created” as in they were not previously a naturally comprised element) that have become harmful to us. I say all that in reaction to disease being a consequence of genetic imperfection. It is, sometimes. Other times, we create the imperfections in ourselves.
As to your goal here, I had never really thought about the absurdity of the “Intelligent Design” theory. As a theist, I admit to being biased in saying that I STILL think that a deity can fit into the universe as we know it through science. But, I also admit that, as you have pointed out, when it comes to certain aspects a deity is not “necessary” for things to work. Though, I am not really convinced that this is the reason that most people believe in a deity (i.e. that there must be some guiding force in the universe)
You are correct in stating that many things that are harmful to humanity have been creations of humanity, although if human beings arose purely through natural processes then anything we create is itself a consequence of a “naturally comprised element”. From this perspective there is nothing humans do, or create, that is not natural.
I suppose the majority of my indignation towards intelligent design theory is the prerequisite of supernatural elements. Inserting intelligence simply isn’t needed to explain natural processes such as evolution and attempting to fit deity into our understanding of the physical universe does not progress science, it only hinders it. As I see it, intelligent design is primarily a reactionary move by people of faith due to the increasingly dominate position of science in answering humanity’s fundamental questions. Believing and supporting intelligent design may not be a requirement of faith, but it is certainly a product of faith.
right. It is a product of faith, or more appropriately, of fear. The fear is the idea that one is wrong. It is a fear of insecurity. It doesn’t really surprise me, honestly. The apocalyptic literary tradition which is so infamous in Jewish and Christian literature is structured to give security to the adherents of a cult that they are RIGHT and will be rewarded for being so. This type of literature is helpful and uplifting to a minority group that is ostracized by their society. Put into the hands of people of power and status and you get what you see in American Christianity.
More to the point, I think that theism does provide a sense of purpose. The nature of this purpose varies according to the religion, but I think this is the main function of sacred texts. They are meant to tell the reader about who the reader is with respect to the deity and, therefore, how the reader should act. So, belief in a deity may not be necessary to explain the universe or to explain our own biology. But, if it can make people treat others with love and respect, I think that it is worth something. Of course, it obviously does not ALWAYS make people do these things, but, hey, we are imperfect, aren’t we?
Beliefs that promote love and respect are most certainly worth something, and the promotion of love and respect can certainly be found in many of the world’s major religions. I feel, as you do, that this is the potential value in religion. Unfortunately many people of faith, especially among American Christians, find the need to invade every field of study and aspect of life with their religious beliefs and doctrines. This is partially due to the inherent nature of faith and partially due to the American mentality. Someone like yourself is able to see both the latent uses and limitations of religion. Unfortunately yet again, that is the minority position.
My problem with Common Descent doesn’t lie in genetics. If the genetics were the only cards on the table, then I’d certainly consider it.
But the Cambrian explosion concerns me. Maybe I’m outdated on the information, but the idea that the majority of phyla appeared in a geological flash doesn’t seem to be compatible with Common Descent.
I have yet to hear an argument making Common Descent and the Cambrian Explosion compatible. I’d like to hear one, if you have it.
“This evidence makes no logical sense if an intelligent designer is assumed, unless it is also assumed that the intelligent designer purposefully designed humans to appear as though we were designed unintelligently.”
I’m not sure you can make the appeal to logic here. This is the basic logic process I’m picking up here:
Evolution shows a process with more waste than productivity.
An ID would have created a more productive process.
Therefore, there can be no ID if life was created via evolution.
You take a bit of a leap on your second premise there, and in turn, your conclusion is pretty shaky. After all, couldn’t anybody argue that the fact that
“If the universality of common descent is acknowledged then the notion of intelligent design should be abandoned. The proof is in your genes.”
I’m calling non sequitor on this one, mainly because you use words with incredibly broad definitions. If Common Descent is correct, then those who believe in a literal Genesis will have to rethink their theories, yes, but the concept of an Intelligent Designer is not exclusive to believing in a 10,000-year-old world made in 7 days.
Also, science doesn’t deal in proof. That goes against its very nature of objectivity.
I think it’s true that evidence should not be brushed aside because of ideological notions, but the idea goes both ways.
*After all, couldn’t anybody argue that the ID is different in nature?
Although I’m no expert on the subject, one thing I do know about the so-called Cambrian explosion is that it occurred over millions of years. While I supposed this could be called a “geological flash” according to the modern theory of evolution millions of years, even tens of thousands, is more than enough time to see rapid mutation followed by speciation. Very significant morphological and genetic mutations can occur in only a few generations within very short periods of time, hundreds or thousands of years, and these mutations can lead to speciations. It is quite possible that environmental conditions during the Cambrian enabled a large number of such mutations, but now I’m only theorizing.
My argument against ID is that it adds nothing of value to our understanding of the evolutionary process because claiming a higher intelligence influenced or even created evolution is neither provable nor disprovable. Anyone can create and support any theory they want, but pseudo-scientific theories like ID have no part in legitimate science. By saying the modern theory of evolution does not require any intelligent designer I am simply saying that evidence trumps mythology.
I’m not entirely sure why you claim the concept of proof is unscientific, proof is simply sufficient evidence to support the validity of an argument. Supporters and propagators of intelligent design claim it is more “scientific” than a literal 7-day Genesis creation. But it should be sufficiently clear that denoting intelligence is a supernatural theory, not a scientific one. The discoveries in genetics are but one pertinent example that life on Earth developed by purely natural processes. And since there is no sufficient evidence for ID, it is only logical to reject the theory with no evidence in favor of the one with increasingly large amounts of evidence. Rejecting groundless theories and accepting proof is essential in science.
You’re really giving a perfect example of why ID is unscientific when you raise an eyebrow at Sam’s conclusion that, because life appears to be the product of unintelligent, natural processes, then it would be foolish to suppose a designer. A person of faith can always retreat into the unknowable. “Well how do you know God DIDN’T create things to appear as though they had evolved naturally?? God is god, and there’s no way to know what he might do!” It’s precisely this sort of utter nonsense that makes my head hurt, and that is entirely indefensible.
Also, if doubts about how the precambrian explosion fits into the idea of common descent are all that are keeping you from accepting that all living things have a common ancestor, then welcome to the Common Descenters. That question is no trouble at all, but I won’t repeat Sam. He summed it up nicely.