picmr,
Non coding DNA is just another term for “junk DNA”. I prefer to use the term ‘non coding’ because ‘junk’ makes it sound like useless garbage and I don’t believe that is an accurate characterization.
JonF, hardcore, and anyone else I may have confused with my software analogy… this one’s for you.
Let’s suppose that I run a software development company. I intend to write a number of programs, many of which have a number of common functions (analogous to genes perhaps). Rather than recreate these common pieces of code repeatedly, I chose to create a software library. I develop the libraries before I ever start building a real program. I spend a lot of time debugging and perfecting these ‘stubs’ to insure the highest quality, most flexibility, and lowest cost for the products that will be built from them. As a result of this development, I’ve probably got a few undetected bugs (I’m not perfect), unintentially inaccessible code (the pressures of my design schedule), intentionally inaccessible code (for debug or future features perhaps), special cases (error code perhaps), comments, and other “non executing code”.
When it comes time to develop my first production software product (Let’s call it ProductA), I ‘glue’ these libraries and code fragments together to create a finished product. The product has all of the characteristic idiosyncracies that I left behind in my libraries.
The very next day, I get a new customer who wants a new program to do something else (Let’s call it ProductB). It’s not radically different than the first program (ProductA), so I have two choices of approach:
(1) I can reproduce a copy of ProductA and modify it slightly to accomplish the new thing. (Let’s call this approach 1)
or
(2) I can use my libraries to build the new program from scratch. (Let’s call this approach 2)
There are several factors that affect this decision, however generally, the best approach is to start from your library. One reason I may make this choice is that I may have a software tool to help me automate the integration process. More importantly, knowing that programmers make errors and knowing that both program may have to go through numerous revisions, it’s much better to fix the bugs at the library level so that future generations of each product will benefit from the fixes. Otherwise I’ve got to go to extreme effort to insure that all of the fixes in all of my programs are all implemented. What a hastle! There are many other reasons why the library approach is usually the best, but that’s mostly irrelevant to the argument.
Possibly not irrelevant to the argument, let’s say I’ve got a competitor that wants to make my life miserable. He occasionally releases specialized computer viruses that attack my program and leave little soft-scars behind. These viruses would tend to leave similar scars on similar code fragments in both software products.
Let’s say you’re a fairly immature programmer. The only way you’ve ever created programs is with approach 1. You’ve never even heard of a library, let alone heard someone tout the virtues of structured programming… You see ProductA with all of it’s little idiosyncracies (and soft-scars) and you see ProductB with all of the same idiosyncracies (and soft-scars). Your natural conclusion is that ProductB is a derivative of ProductA.
My point is that in reality, there may not be any obvious way to tell which approach was used to generate ProductB.
Is that any clearer?
Well, I understand your message (and I think I understood most of that before, having written some semi-commercial code myself and having been on the fringes of software development at various times).
But, regardless of which approach generated product B, let’s say product A and product B contain a significant amount of the exact same bugs and unreachable code. Let’s also say that they each have bugs and unreachable code that is not shared with the other program (because you fixed some bugs and unreachable code but introduced some bugs and unreachable code) in whatver process you used to create product B.
Would we not be justified in concluding that products A and B share a common ancestor, be it a library that was changed somewhat between product A and product B, or be it that product B was directly derived from product A, or maybe even be it that products A and B were coded by the same programmer who tends to repeat the same mistakes? (Not that I’m accusing you of repeating your mistakes {grin}).
Yes, but the theory of evolution says the only way that ProductB could look so much like ProductA is direct inheritance. These similarities don’t necessarily validate evolution. In this example, both programs starting from a library could be analogous to a creator producing two independent species from a similar ‘recipe’. Again, that’s not my theory, just playing devil’s advocate (why do I feel like I have to keep reminding everyone that I’m not a creationist?).
So to extend my point, if a creationist says “animals don’t evolve”, you shouldn’t say that the genetic record proves that they must. It’s consistent with the theory of evolution, but it’s also consistent with anti-evolution theories, so it doesn’t necessarily PROVE anything.
[quote]
It’s consistent with the theory of evolution, but it’s also consistent with anti-evolution theories/quote]
OK, I think I get your point. Remember that, formally (define “science” in Backus-Naur form {grin}), nothing is ever proven in science. The evidence accumulates to a point when either a theory is untenable or established to a point that it’s not worth further testing (until we think up newer types of tests). The theory of evolution predicts that non-functional DNA would be inherited; that non-functional DNA appears in exactly the manner predicted by the inheritance model is strong evidence for the theory of evolution, and is only one of many such evidences and even stronger ones.
I don’t know of any model that is inconsistent with the observed properties of non-functional DNA, but there are many alternative "theories"that are not consistent with observed facts.
Actually, Products A and B could both be decendents of a common ancestor, both having “directly inherited” their qualities from Product Z. If you diagrammed “evolution” it would look like a tree rather than a straight line (which is what you would get if evolution were a matter of “direct inheritance”)
Or maybe not. There is a process called “convergent evolution” in which the similarity between Products A & B comes about because they both serve the same need and therefore tend to look alike. As an example, a desert animal in Australia and a desert animal in Mexico might look alike (like having big ears to help dissipate body heat). It doesn’t necessarily mean that one “evolved” from the other, just that the same natural selection pressures were exerted on both and they responded in the same way. Remember when you heard the same patently obvious OJ Simpson jokes? Any idiot could have come up with them, and since there is no shortage of idiots the same joke shows up in New York and Portland and Caracas and wherever at exactly the same time, but with no real “connection” to the others.
However.
The same DNA tests used to determine paternity (and who Thomas Jefferson might have been boffing all those years ago) can be used on other living things to determine genetic similarities. Physical similarities are irrelevant, but genetics don’t lie about who your father, grandfather, and great-grandfather are.
JoeyBlades
So what? It is the creationists who are choosing to remain ignorant and closing their eyes to the facts. Science is a moving target and it progresses as we learn more about the world around us. Theories change over time and definitions are modified as our knowledge grows. The definition of evolution was appropriately refined as our ability to measure it improved. The definition of gravity has completely changed over the last 90 years because of Einstein, and quantum theory has totally revamped the way we view reality. This is the strength of the scientific process – it is the creationists who wish the world remained stagnant.
For some reason you think pseudogenes are not inherited because of this statement:
The pseudogene does get passed down, as molecular evidence has shown. If the environment would have exerted a negative selective pressure for this particular gene (by not providing enough ascorbic acid), then individuals with a healthy gene would have enjoyed a competitive advantage. Individuals with the genetic flaw would have been driven to extinction.
Maybe now we are getting somewhere. You admit this type of evidence would be convincing, and it is exactly the type I quoted to you earlier with “A small section of the GLO pseudogene sequence was recently compared from human, chimpanzee, macaque and orangutan; all four pseudogenes were found to share a common crippling single nucleotide deletion …” Since it is well known the mentioned species share a recent common ancestor, this was to be expected. The guinea pig is presumed to have a different, independent mutation, because all other mammals are able to synthesis ascorbic acid normally.
I realize you are just attempting to interject some levity into the dialogue. However, I feel compelled to point out that you are the one taking a position contrary to almost the entire scientific community, so perhaps the obstinacy resides with you. 
Certainly we could wait until the entire universe has been thoroughly examined before making any conclusions. But that would just be silly, and no scientific progress would ever be made. We (and the jury) have to make judgements on the best available evidence, especially when it is so convincing. And this was the point of the analogy. The entire human genome has essentially been mapped, thus I feel fairly confident the DNA labeled as unnecessary is likely so.
At any rate, I am unsure why you imagine that lateral genetic transfer somehow conflicts with evolutionary theory. And I would be extremely interested in any other conflicting evidence you claim to know about. Perhaps you could elaborate and enlighten me.
The reason we are speaking past one another with this analogy is I am casting the program writer as Nature, while you are referring to the programmer as a creator, or God. The real question becomes this – does Nature do the copying, or does God, complete with errors in the non-functional DNA? It is easy to imagine the errors being copied naturally. Claiming an omniscient being would do it and copy the errors stretches the limits of credulity
If you wish to postulate a creator who magically “poofs” species into existence, it leads to a host of unanswered questions. Why would he create the species so they “appear” to have evolved from an earlier species? Why do species “appear” to evolve from the species he created? Why would he distribute the apparently related species in geographic proximity only? Why would he create species just to see them go extinct? Why would he create clinal variations and ring species, where individuals from neighboring populations can interbreed, but they cannot at extreme ends of the cline because they are so divergent? And of course, why would he include non-functional DNA and match the errors in it from another species, creating the illusion of relatedness?
To reiterate my point, if one is searching for proof, stick with mathematics. Science can only provide evidence, and that evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.
Designed by Natural Selection
Gregory Koukl
Could it be the evolutionists who are being irrational?
About a year and a half ago, I gave a response to an article in the L. A. Times about a book called The Moral Animal–Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright. This response resulted in my commentary called " Did Morals Evolve? " There are some interesting things in this book I want to comment on.
Wright’s argument is that it is possible to explain all of man’s mental and moral development in terms of evolution, “survival of the fittest,” and natural selection. One thing he acknowledges is essentially the same point of view held by one of the world’s most famous evolutionists, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins makes the point in his watershed book, The Blind Watchmaker , that the world looks designed. He asserts it looks designed–but isn’t. He believes natural selection can be invoked to account for all of the things that appear to be consciously design.
Robert Wright unabashedly makes the same point. He uses design language in his descriptions all of the time. He talks about nature wanting certain things and natural selection designing particular things, but then is careful at different points to add the disclaimer that this design is just a manner of speaking because Mother Nature doesn’t actually design anything. Natural selection doesn’t design anything. There is no mind behind this, no consciousness. It just looks that way. However, since it looks designed, he feels comfortable using design language to describe natural selection as a designer, which is no conscious designer at all.
I think his work might be more honest if he didn’t use design language, but it’s interesting that he is at least willing to acknowledge that nature does look designed.
Incidentally, I am one who believes that natural selection is a legitimate explanation for many things. I think we can see natural selection at work in the natural realm that does influence the morphological distinctives of populations. The shape of the body is ultimately going to be determined by the genetic makeup of the creature, but whether that phenotype gets passed from generation to generation will be determined by environmental factors–natural selection. And that will then begin to characterize larger groups of the organism.
Basically I believe in what is known technically as the Special Theory of Evolution, or micro -evolution, because it has been demonstrated without question to have occurred. We can observe it happening. This doesn’t go against my Christianity or my conviction that God created the world. Darwinian evolution requires macro -evolution, or trans-species evolution.
Any design creationist of any ilk, whether old-earther or young-earther, can hold to this. For example, a population of mosquitoes can be almost entirely wiped out by DDT, except for those few who may be naturally and genetically resistant to that strain of DDT. Then they reproduce a whole strain of mosquitoes that are resistant to that strain of DDT. But this is unremarkable. When I hear these kinds of descriptions of minute changes and small variations within a species attributed to natural selection, I have no problem with that in itself.
The so-called scientific argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that nature did it, and not by evidence that God could not have done it.
I do have another question regarding the assessment, or acknowledgment, that the world looks designed. If it looks designed, it could be equally explained by either the unconscious “design” of natural selection, as the author argues, or the conscious design of a Creator. If someone looks at the natural realm and observes that it looks designed but thinks that it can be accounted for by natural selection, then they are identifying empirical equivalency between two different explanations. Empirical equivalency means the observable data can be explained by two alternatives equally. In this case, the observation of design can be attributed to natural selection or conscious design. The evidence is equal for both. That’s what it means to say that the world looks designed but natural selection can account for it.
My question is, why opt for the evolutionary explanation if there are two different explanations that will equally do the job? When you have a question that needs resolution and two empirically equivalent solutions, you must look for some other information to adjudicate between the two. Is there something that can be said for one system over the other that would cause us to choose it as the paradigm which better reflects how the world came to be? What is the compelling evidence that would cause us to opt for a naturalistic explanation over some kind of theistic explanation? Frankly, I know of none. There is only a predisposition to look for a naturalistic explanation that leaves God out. If that is the case, then it needs to be acknowledged.
Why go for natural selection rather than for God? Because God is religion and natural selection is science. Science is seen as fact–and religion as fantasy. If we have a set of physical facts that can be accounted for by a theistic explanation, then you have to have some other information that may cause you to want to dismiss the theistic option. I’m asking “where is the evidence that makes the God option an intellectually untenable one, without bringing in a mere philosophic assumption (namely naturalism)?”
One might rightly ask, where is your evidence that God did it? I can give lots of it. I could give independent evidence that is unrelated to religious authority claims. I can give other evidence why it is reasonable to believe and would be intellectually and rationally compelling to believe that there is a conscious mind behind the universe. I could give cosmological and moral arguments that God is the best explanation for the existence and nature of the universe. Many of these rely on scientific evidence.
Given two options to explain the apparent design features of the universe, one seems to be a bald-faced authority claim – the non-religious, so-called scientific one.
We have two options–one scientific and one religious–that equally explain the observation of a designed universe. The so-called scientific argument is sustained simply by a bald assertion that nature did it and not by evidence that God could not have done it. However, the design claim that I am making can be further substantiated by other evidence for the existence of God. When push comes to shove, if you are rational, it is more reasonable for you to adopt the conscious design explanation–the God claim. Most people are not going to do that because it is not scientific.
Why does that matter?
Because science knows the answer.
How do they know the answer?
Because God doesn’t exist.
How do they know that?
Because nature did everything.
But how do you know that?
That is the question we are trying to ask and there are no rationally sustainable answers forthcoming.
Many people, including myself, find the Supreme Being explanation significantly more complex than the evolutionary explanation, and apply Occam’s razor.
I’ve heard this before … please produce your evidence.
Thre is indeed no evidence that a Supreme Being could not have done it; it’s not a scientific question. I dare to say that thre is no evidence that does not rely on faith that a Supreme Being did it.
The scientific argument is supported by mountains of evidence. If faith is what matters to you, then feel free to reject that evidence. But claiming that science has nothing more than a “bald-faced assertion” is an insidious lie.
Technically known as a “straw-man argument”.
I took a look at that. Are you Gregory Koukl? Whether or not your are, Mr Koukl has a lot of misconceptions about the theory of evolution and current theories in physics. To give him credit, he does discredit many of the crazier “creation science” arguments, and many of those essays contain a lot of interesting and valid points, but he perpetrates a lot of howlers himself. For example:
Incorrect. The two are separate questions. Evolution does not depend on the origin of life.
Incorrect. Science works on both deterministic and non-deterministic models. Quantum mechanics, one of the most successful scientific theories ever, if not the most successful, is non-deterministic.
Whoever said it, it’s crap. Totally false.
I forget the correct terminology for this fallacy; but one’s inability to conceive of a way in which physical attributes lead to a notion of value is {i]not* evidence that physical attributes do not lead to a notion of value.
There may be a very few scientists who demand that “their view be taught without any criticism and critique”, but this is definitely not the view of the vast majority of scientists. Another straw man.
That’s just a semi-random sapling of the essays that caught my eye.
JonF said:
Wow. Just a sapling. Imagine if you’d had time to do a whole tree!
Sorry. Had to say it.
Celt
JonF addressed most of your post, but this seems to be central to your argument. Your assumption is that Nature appears designed, while I would counter that it only appears designed to you. Much of the evidence leads me to the conclusion that nature was definitely not designed, or if it was, someone did a very poor job. For example,
[list=1]
[li]90-95% of human DNA unnecessary “junk”[/li][li]innocent children born suffering, and with terrible deformities[/li][li]general suffering, cancer, and plagues[/li][li]vestigial and unnecessary structures (appendix, wisdom teeth, male nipples)[/li][li]mitochondria have their own DNA[/li][li]urethra passing through the prostate[/li][li]air and solid food passing through same orifice, resulting in death from choking[/li][li]many more examples of bad design[/li][/list=1]
You need to answer these questions before I would consider any appearance of “design”.
Neener neener neener! {sticksing out tongue} {grin}
JonF:
Well, I think there are an infinite number of states between ‘untenable’ and ‘established’. I also think that evolution is somewhere in the middle, slowly swinging away from the ‘untenable’ end of the spectrum, but still somewhat distant from the ‘established’ end.
hardcore wrote:
If you want to convince the State Boards of Education and the fundies that they are doing a disservice to science, you’d better make sure you’re all talking the same language.
No, for some reason I think that this statement from your link is claiming that pseudogenes are not inherited. I DO think they are inherited and was just trying to understand, what sounds to me like, contradictory claim.
Well, you almost had me convinced… until you watered down the effect when you threw in the part about the guinea pig arriving at the same mutation through an independent process. If it could happen to the guinea pig, why not the chimpanzee, macaque or orangutan? I’m being somewhat facetious here, to make a point.
Whoa Nellie! I don’t think I ever indicated that I thought the continued study and refinement of the theory of evolution should be slowed in any way. I’m only arguing about what you call it (‘scientific theory’ versus ‘scientific fact’) and what conclusions you make this early in the game.
If it’s unnecessary, why is there so much of it there? More on this later…
No. First of all, I’m trying NOT to refer to the program writer, at all. I’m trying to refer to the process only. You say that the program could only have been developed iteratively (relying on both micro and macro evolution), I’m saying that the program COULD have been developed in one shot (and mutated only slightly over the eons, via micro evolution).
JonF writes:
Picking nits here. A supreme being is not more complex than the theory of evolution, but that’s OK because Occam’s Razor wouldn’t necessarily apply. The real issue (and the original application of Occam’s Razor) was that the requirement of a supreme being just adds an unknown and (possibly) unnecessary variable.
hardcore writes… as he has on numerous occasions:
What evidence do you have to support this notion? Non coding simply means that it’s not producing proteins. It doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily not serving some other useful function.
From the May 1997 issue of Nature Genetics, Haig H. Kazazian, Jr., MD, chairman of the department of genetics writes:
From the 1997 International Conference on Genetic Algorithms proceedings:
Professor W.B. Wood, Chairman of the Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado wrote:
Against my better judgement, I offer the following link:
http://www.jps.net/bygrace/evolution/junkdna.html
Admittedly, this has a decidedly ‘creationist science’ bent, however much of the content is relevant and seems reasonably well documented, so don’t dismiss it just on the basis that these guys are trying to use science to defend God. Only view it in relation to the question “is non coding DNA junk?”.
There seems to be more evidence that non coding DNA does have a function than evidence that it does not. Do you see the irony in your position?
Celt wrote:
You do realize that “science” cannot tell whether God exists, nor does it try to determine whether God exists. Don’t you?
Cripes, what is it with these Creationists who feel that an attack on Creationism is an attack on God?!
This is the most intelligent thing I’ve seen posted in a week.
Please do. However, if you redo my example, using a piece of COBOL code, and call it the “Zebediah algorithm”, it will just be parallel evolution, not copying. 
Rather than proceeding down the long, tedious and inconclusive road of theism vs. antitheism, is it safe to say that the theory of evolution, as scientifically supported does not rule out intelligent design?
In other words, is there a reconciliation between the belief in a creator and the unproven theory of evolution. Please note I did not say that the theory of evolution is not without evidence, only that it is not completely conclusive.
Celt said:
There is absolutely no conflict between belief in a creator and any modern scientific theory, no matter how “unproven” or otherwise it may be. Belief in a creator is not science (although that’s not to say that it can’t be perfectly valid and factually accurate: it is simply not amenable to the processes of scientific modeling and testing). Likewise, no scientific theory or law provides any useful information about the existence of any supernatural being. Science as now practiced (if done right) is the strictly materialist investigation and systematization of natural phenomena, and (to quote Simon Newcomb) “we are not to call in a supernatural cause to account for a result that could be produced by the operation of known processes.”
(The gist of these statements has been reiterated numerous times on this message board, and after all members have taken their turn at repeating it the SDMB staff will erect a huge replica of the statue of Truth in the Lost City of Kor, with all our different phrasings carved into its plinth, and post a photograph of it on the website for the delectation of all viewers. So you can cross my name off the list now, DavidB. )
A couple of caveats:
-
The scientific evidence for evolution, and the scientific theory that has been constructed to account for it, cannot be expected to provide “objective evidence” for the existence of a creator any more than evidence against it. It is indeed a purely materialist model that undertakes to explain (eventually) the history and characteristics of all living beings from the emergence of life up till the present moment from purely material causes, without reference to divine creation in any form. This does not in the least imply that these apparently material processes may not be initiated, supervised, or continually implemented by an intelligent creator in supernatural ways not detectable by scientific means.
-
Some creationists complain that the very existence of a materialist scientific model attempting to explain all life without reference to divine creation is somehow an assault on belief in a creator. The fragility of such people’s religious beliefs is not the fault of evolution (unless we wish to postulate some kind of fragile-belief gene :)) or of the scientists who study it, and science has no obligation to revise its conclusions so that such people won’t feel assaulted by them.
Kimstu
(who is just now rereading Ronald L. Numbers’ The Creationists, and heartily recommends it)
JoeyBlades
The statement does not claim that pseudogenes are not inherited. Maybe you can explain further how the statement is confusing you and I will attempt to clarify. Or perhaps since you already accept that pseudogenes are inherited, it can be considered a moot point.
When writing about similar errors in pseudogenes between closely relate species, you said:
I hope you are being facetious. The guinea pig doesn’t have the same mutation. It is a different mutation that has the same effect of crippling the gene. Were it the same, you can bet there would be a study to determine if the guinea pig had a more recent common ancestor with primates than is currently acknowledged. The chances of all the presumed closely related species having exactly the same mutation in exactly the same location are astronomical and can safely be ignored.
The theory of evolution has been in use approximately 150 years, so I wouldn’t call it “early in the game”. Moreover, it is so late in the game that the scientific community considers evolution a fact, with only the mechanisms by which it occurs being debated. You will not find any articles in the scientific journals entitled “Further evidence for evolution”, much as you will not find any called “Further evidence for gravity” – it is a foregone conclusion.
Concerning the 90-95% of unnecessary DNA in humans, you wrote:
Why, indeed! From a creationists viewpoint, it makes no sense. Why include a lot of overhead and junk that could possibly spoil your perfect creation? And why copy the same errors between separately created species?
However, from an evolutionary perspective, it makes perfect sense. We know several mechanisms by which DNA length can be increased through genetic accidents such as DNA duplications and insertion of retroposons, which have been observed in the lab or occurring in humans without apparent effects; so it is reasonable to suppose that these mechanisms operated in the past to increase genome size without affecting function (see here). Since there is no selective pressure against it, the extra DNA gets carried along the necessary sections.
In reference to the programming analogy, you said:
Before I can effectively submit a rebuttal, I think you should specify the position you are defending by analogy. Are you supposing creation of all current species 10,000 years ago? At the beginning of the Tertiary Period 65 million years ago? At the Cambrian explosion? At the abiogenesis event some 3.5 billion years ago?
While taking issue with my statement that 90-95% of human DNA is unnecessary, you use the following quotes:
Certainly evolution can make use of any materials available, has obviously done so in the past, and perhaps will do so in the future. This doesn’t change the fact that it is currently not being used for anything, and I have yet to see any evidence of the extra DNA being a “key force for diversification”. Claiming it to be functional because it might be used in the future ascribes a predictive quality to a process that has no foresight.
Note the 97% number versus my 90-95%. But having it in the genome does not suggest an advantage. By that logic, there must be an advantage to having an appendix, or wisdom teeth, or male nipples, etc. What it does suggest is there is no significant selective pressure against it.
By definition, introns are functionless segments of DNA that are transcribed into the RNA, then “spliced out” during processing. Regulatory sequences occur just outside the transcribed region and generally take up much less DNA than the coding sequences of the genes they regulate, so they cannot represent a likely function for most non-coding DNA. Besides, even if all the 3% coding DNA were accompanied by regulatory sequences of equal length, you would still be left with 94% junk, well within my 90-95% figure.
Statements that you “suspect they may be a key force for diversification”, “suggests that there must be an advantage”, and “some of which probably serves still unknown control functions” do not constitute evidence of function. Some of the 97% non-coding DNA may be discovered to have functionality in the future, bringing it into agreement with my 90-95% number, so this looks to be a safe estimate. Either way, there is an awful lot of DNA that currently serves no useful purpose.
Celt
Science does not address the unnecessary complication of an intelligent designer. Or an unintelligent one. Or an invisible pink one. None of these are necessary for a pursuit of understanding and knowledge about the universe. I am told that many reconcile Science with their belief in a creator by imagining God to have set everything in motion with the Big Bang, then letting nature take it’s course. Seems a perfectly reasonable explanation to me.
Celt said,
I’d say there is absolutely reconciliation here. Given my armchair understanding of a couple of our greatest philosophers, namely Hegel and Aristotle, I’d have to say that the idea that nature has an almost Godlike way of doing things is embedded in Western civilization. Put a different way, I’d say it’s almost intellectual habit to treat evolution as a planned, thoughtful process. It’s not scientific to do so - the “intentions” of nature cannot be proven or falsified, as we have seen. But that doesn’t make it bad metaphor. On the contrary, I’d say it’s exactly this kind of metaphor that vitalizes what could otherwize be dull data gathering. Compare:
“The mother duck’s actions are governed by a concentrated set of nerves in its head, which cause it to react to not being able to find one of its ducklings by agitated movements. This allows it to cover more lines of sight and increase the changes of the duckling being found and returning to the family. The presence of these nervous reaction patterns increase the likelihood that the duck’s genes will be propagated.”
with:
“The mother duck is concerned for the welfare of her ducklings. This can be seen by here searching and quacking for her young when one of them gets lost. The sense of family, instinctual though it may be, is crucial to the survival of ducks in their most vulnerable years.”
(By the way, I just made that up. I’ve seen duck families before, and they stay together pretty well, but I don’t know how common it is for mother ducks to actively search for separated ducklings.) The point is, there is really nothing wrong with the second paragraph, though it anthropomorphizes ducks to a great degree.
Taking it a step further, there would be nothing wrong with a Christian understanding the very same situation in a religiously-influenced way. If love and family and nurturing are good for humans, why shouldn’t they be good for ducks? If somebody wants to say that God gave the ability to love to all his favorite creatures, science isn’t going to disagree.
The reconciliation comes when the scientific Christian points out that God, having created everything, must logically have created evolution as well. Creationists try to use charges of “randomness” as a way to bludgeon "macro"evolution … do evolutionists expect us to believe everything got this way by accident? Far from it. Evolution is not, scientifically speaking, the product of some brain located in the head of some guy on the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, but neither is it a random process: genes which help a species survive rise in frequency; the bad ones decline. Similarities between evolution and a thought process are too instructive to be ignored.