Creationism Kills the Economy. Really?

The recent, greatly anticipated debate between secular science apologist Bill Nye and young earth creationist Ken Ham certainly lived up to its billing. (Replay at debatelive.org.) My general take is each man argued his position on origins and geology pretty well. But the nitty-gritty arguments for old earth evolution or young earth biblical science are not the biggest headline. Broader warnings from Nye are what grabbed my attention the most.

Most importantly, Nye was not at all convincing when it came to his chief concern as a "mainstream" scientist out there in "the real world" who's greatly worried about science education of America's youth and it's effect on our nation's future.  Specifically, he failed at showing a viable connection between skepticism of evolution and a weakening American economy. That's because there is no connection.

To the contrary, Ham easily demonstrated that Darwin doubters, even young earth creationists, contribute greatly to the advancement of practical scientific technologies. Among many notable examples, the inventor of medicine's MRI. So when it comes to actionable breakthroughs in mathematical engineering--nothing if not real science--any beliefs that these pioneers might have related to historical science of biological origins or the age of the earth is utterly perfunctory. Fretting about such beliefs as some kind of economic threat is a childish distraction. Evolution critics can help advance pragmatic, exciting science and improve our way of life as much as anyone, as long as they do the work their respective specialties demand. And Chicken Little's dollar will not fall because of them.

Secularists often say there is insufficient evidence to connect religious beliefs with clearly demonstrable events perceivable by all who live in "the real world."  And so they confuse today's thinking, religious believers with the ancient mindset of, say, Ancient Greece; of believing in a capricious deity or in deities who magically zap the world with no intelligible rhyme, reason, or natural causation.

But it's Bill Nye who actually makes the muzziest of arguments, trying to force two entirely disjointed things together; doubts about Darwin and a collapse of the economy. Not really fitting for The Science Guy.

My Comments (& Others) at KyDeptEd Hearing on Proposed New Ky. Science Standards

I addressed the Ky Dept of Ed at the public hearing in Frankfort Tue, July 23, 2013 about the Next Generation Science Standards. My 5 minutes of comments target the evolutionary biology aspect.
Here's the whole video of the KDE hearing. http://mediaportal.education.ky.gov/videos/kde-public-hearing-7232013/  I'm at 15:30 run time mark, the first one of about 20 or so to address the science standards. Nothing from me about fascism, murder, genocide, or the like, so I didn't make the Courier Journal's cut. You'll have to listen to some of the others to get that perspective.

Or, if you prefer to just read, my text is pasted below:

We and our Kentucky kids are being misled.  The Next Generation Science Standards do not reflect all the latest scientific research, at least the research on evolutionary theory—not by a long shot.  Much is not settled.  And we’re being misled to assume all opposition to this view of biology is a matter of religion.

Random mutation is not settled with Cambridge biochemist Douglas Axe.  He doesn’t talk about religion, but his research in the Journal of Molecular Biology discusses how amino acids fold up 3-dimensionally in just the right complex shapes to form the exact kind of proteins needed to construct and do work in the living cell. Axe says, among all the possible amino acid combinations, the probability of random mutation generating just one short protein capable of folding and remaining stable is roughly[[[[[[[ 1 in 10 to the 74th power, or ]]]]]]]]] one chance in a hundred trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.  Will our kids get to consider this or anything else that challenges macroevolution by chance mutation and natural selection?

Gerd Muller and Stuart Newman published essays by several scientists wondering how neo-Darwinism could explain the origin of epigenetic information.  [[[[[[[But when it comes to comparing  traits of various species,]]]]]]]] the NGS standards over-emphasize genetic similarities between species to prove macroevolution, and seem to overlook these crucial epigenetic factors, that is, microbiological factors that are not traced to genes, that determine how organs are shaped and body plans come together.  So, when it comes to evolutionary microbiology, the writers of the NGSS are behind the curve.

[[[[[[[The truth is there are a multitude of problems that have biologists branching off into all kinds of competing theories that have to forsake Darwin, but preserve at least some kind of evolutionary model.]]]]]]]

A group of leading evolutionary biologists, known as the Altenberg 16, completely without religious concerns [[[[[[except, perhaps, not to be seen as religious]]]]]]]], are explicitly calling to toss out the old for some new theory of evolution that might really work.  If you’re afraid to teach our kids the controversy and let them weigh some issues for themselves, then maybe we are raising them to be intellectually weak.

It’s been said these standards are unified by research in multiple fields.

Well, will our kids learn what’s going on in Paleontology?  Paul Chien, University of San Francisco.  He doesn’t talk about religion, but he’s researched how Pre-Cambrian rock strata in southern China have fossilized soft-bodied embryos.  This helps to prove that the great number of new species that suddenly arose in the Cambrian era have no evolutionary ancestors.  Darwin worried how the kind of fossil evidence that we have today could eventually threaten his theory.  Will our students learn this?

Mathematics:  John Lennox shows mathematic evidence to question seriously how blind nature itself could have produced novel semantic information necessary for the first biological life or new species to arise. Now Lennox does believe in God, but he’s also professor of mathematics at this quaint little college called Oxford.

There are Philosophers of Science who are somewhere between admitted agnosticism or atheism, and yet say challenges to Darwinism can have merit. These include Princeton-educated David Berlinski, who also makes mathematic challenges, and Princeton-educated Bradley Monton, now professor at University of Colorado at Boulder. New York University philosopher Thomas Nagel says the current evolutionary paradigm based on materialistic reductionism is bankrupt in explaining the existence of the mind. Will our kids’ minds get exposed to this?

Cosmology:  The late Allan Sandage, the twentieth century’s most influential astronomer, conceded, "The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone. [[[[[I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together." He did eventually become a theist. (Cited by Lennox, 176). ]]]]]]]

I urge the KDE not only to reject the NGS Standards related to evolutionary biology, but also to review current state standards that do not adequately address these and other substantive disagreements among real scientists.  [[[[[[[These challenges are based on observable research and analysis, not religious agendas.  If you made your decision to pass the NGSS without weighing these scholars' arguments with at least a cursory understanding, then now’s the time.]]]]]]] Are our kids being prepared to wrestle through the controversy behind such an important issue while considering the different sides?  If not, they’re really not becoming educated.

This has everything to do with our school childrens’ understanding of their own significance and what purpose is behind their own lives.  It’s more than just science.  We can’t get this wrong.  The gravity of the theoretical domain of evolution demands that you burn the midnight oil in comprehending these arguments.  Because the writers of the NGSS are either misleading us or they themselves are underprepared and underinformed.

5:30  [[[[[[4:40]]]]]]

References:

Axe, DD.  “Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.” In J Mol Biol. 2004 Aug 27;341(5):1295-315.

Berlinski, David. “The Deniable Darwin.” Commentary 101 (1996): 19– 29.

_______. “On Assessing Genetic Algorithms.” Public lecture, “Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe” Conference, Yale University, November 4, 2000.

Britten, Roy J., and Eric H. Davidson. “Gene Regulation for Higher Cells: A Theory.” Science 165 (1969): 349-57.

Chien, Paul, J. Y. Chen, C. W. Li, and Frederick Leung. “SEM Observation of Precambrian Sponge Embryos from Southern China, Revealing Ultrastructures Including Yolk Granules, Secretion Granules, Cytoskeleton, and Nuclei.” Paper presented to the North American Paleontological Convention, University of California, Berkeley, June 26– July 1, 2001.

Lennox, John C. God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? Oxford:  Lion, 2009. Chapters 9-11.

Mazur, Suzan. The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry. Berkeley, CA:  North Atlantic Books, 2010.

Monton, Bradley. Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design. Buffalo, NY:  Broadview, 2009.

Müller, Gerd B., and Stuart A. Newman.  “Origination of Organismal Form: The Forgotten Cause in Evolutionary Theory.”  In Organization of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, edited by G.B. Müller and S. A. Newman, 3-10. Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press, 2003.

Nagle, Thomas. Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. New York:  Oxford University Press, 2012.

Shapiro, Jams A. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press Science, 2011.