Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: Dennis R

Author Exchange Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: Dennis R. Venema A Reply to Meyer Dennis R. Venema Weizsäcker’s book The World View of Physics is still keeping me very busy. It has again brought home to me quite clearly how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved. Dietrich Bonhoeffer1 am thankful for this opportunity to nature, is the result of intelligence. More- reply to Stephen Meyer’s criticisms over, this assertion is proffered as the I 2 of my review of his book Signature logical basis for inferring design for the in the Cell (hereafter Signature). Meyer’s origin of biological information: if infor- critiques of my review fall into two gen- mation only ever arises from intelli- eral categories. First, he claims I mistook gence, then the mere presence of Signature for an argument against bio- information demonstrates design. A few logical evolution, rendering several of examples from Signature make the point my arguments superfluous. Secondly, easily: Meyer asserts that I have failed to refute … historical scientists can show that his thesis by not providing a “causally a presently acting cause must have adequate alternative explanation” for the been present in the past because the origin of life in that the few relevant cri- proposed candidate is the only known tiques I do provide are “deeply flawed.” cause of the effect in question. If there I will address these issues in turn. is only one possible cause of a salient piece of evidence, then clearly the Straw Man presence of that evidence establishes the past existence of its cause. (Signa- or Valid Critique? ture, p. 167, emphasis in original) I find Meyer’s claim that biological evolution is irrelevant to the argument of Dennis Venema is associate professor at Trinity Western University and Signature curious for several reasons. a Senior Fellow with the BioLogos Foundation. He obtained his BSc and The most important reason is that the PhD in cell biology and genetics from the University of British Columbia. basic argument of Signature requires that His research interests include the genetics of tissue patterning in Drosophila, genetics education, and the interaction between evolutionary biology and biological evolution be incapable of gen- Christian faith. Recently, he has authored a series of blog posts, discuss- erating new information. A constant ing how information arises during evolution for the Biologos Foundation. thread running through Signature is the He and his family enjoy numerous outdoor activities that the Pacific coast claim that all information, whatever its region has to offer. Volume 63, Number 3, September 2011 183 Author Exchange Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: A Reply to Meyer Indeed, our uniform experience affirms that speci- since information is not uniquely associated with fied information—whether inscribed in hiero- intelligent activity. glyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experi- A second reason for puzzlement is that Meyer ment—always arises from an intelligent source, does indeed argue that Douglas Axe’s work on bio- from a mind and not strictly a material process. So logical evolution is evidence that information cannot the discovery of the specified digital information in arise in a prebiotic environment. A careful examina- the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for tion of how Meyer frames Axe’s work is illuminating: inferring that intelligence played a role in the ori- Thus, as a specific test of the efficacy of the neo- gin of DNA. Indeed, whenever we find specified Darwinian mechanism (as well as the chance origin information and we know the causal story of how of information in a prebiotic setting), Axe posed the that information arose, we always find that it arose question: How rare or common are functional from an intelligent source. It follows that the best, protein folds within their corresponding amino most causally adequate explanation for the origin acid-sequence space? … It’s important to empha- of the specified, digitally encoded information in size that Axe’s prediction follows from the premise DNA is that it too had an intelligent source. (Signa- that intelligent design played a role in the origin ture, p. 347, emphasis in original) of new genes and proteins during biological (or Moreover, because experience shows that an intel- chemical) evolution. Since the case for intelligent ligent agent is not only a known, but the only design as the best explanation for the origin of known cause of specified, digitally encoded infor- biological information necessary to build novel mation, the theory of intelligent design developed forms of life depends, in part, upon the claim that in this book has passed two critical tests: the tests of functional (information-rich) genes and proteins causal adequacy and causal existence … Precisely cannot be explained by random mutation and because intelligent design uniquely passed these selection, this design hypothesis …” (Signature, tests, I argued that it stands as the best explanation pp. 494–5, emphases mine) of the DNA enigma. (Signature, p. 405, emphasis in Note several features. Clearly both biological and original) chemical evolution are in view here, since Meyer The strength of this argument depends on the asser- explicitly says so twice. He claims that Axe’s work, tion that all information arises from intelligence. Note which is about biological evolution only, is a test of the well: the argument requires that all information, in possibility that information could arise prebiotically. any form, be the result of intelligence, not just the He also feels that it is “important to emphasize” that information required for the origin of life. If any Axe’s work flows from a specific premise, not a pre- natural mechanism can be found that produces infor- diction. And what is that premise? That “design mation of any sort, Meyer’s argument collapses played a role in the origin of new genes and proteins simply based on its own internal logic. This is not during biological (or chemical) evolution.” Meyer a peripheral argument tucked away in an appendix: then goes on to cite Axe’s 2004 paper as “initial confir- it is warp and woof of the entire book, and Meyer mation” of Axe’s prediction, thus providing support reiterates it unchanged, even within his response.3 for his argument that information cannot arise It was in this context and to this end that I discussed through chemical evolution. several examples of how evolutionary mechanisms The important point here is simple: evidence that generate biological information in my original refutes Axe’s work on biological evolution, such as 4 review, and later in more detail as a series of blog I have provided, does indeed undercut Meyer’s 5 posts for the BioLogos Foundation. In those sources, argument. Meyer cannot simultaneously claim sup- readers may examine the evidence that, contra Meyer, port from Axe’s work on biological evolution for large amounts of new information have indeed arisen hisownviewsonchemicalevolutionand claim that through the natural mechanisms of biological evolu- I am erecting a straw man by pointing out the flaws tion. If a natural mechanism can produce information, in Axe’s work. Meyer’s attempt to excise it notwith- then Meyer cannot claim that only intelligence pro- standing, this appendix is functional and relevant to duces it. As such, he cannot reliably infer that the the argument of Signature.6 Furthermore, the point information we see in modern DNA was designed, I raised in my original review still stands: the obser- 184 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Dennis R. Venema vation that biological evolution can add large when the science itself is in flux. Frontier science amounts of information to DNA is a very good remains a tempting source for apologists, however, reason to investigate if similar processes were in in that it is a natural place to look for unanswered operation at the origin of life. questions and genuine scientific controversy. 3. Has scientific progress strengthened or weakened the Apologetics and Science: argument since its publication? Learning from History This question becomes progressively easier to answer as time goes on, and may be difficult to discern in All apologetics arguments based on the lack of scien- the short term. Still, in a rapidly advancing field of tific knowledge, such as those Meyer employs in science, even a few years may suffice to demonstrate Signature, are potentially vulnerable to future ad- a trend supporting or undermining a specific vances in scientific understanding. As such, it is wise argument. to carefully evaluate such arguments in an attempt to estimate their long-term stability. While there is no Christian apologetics has a long history of argu- standard metric for such evaluations, I commonly ment based on unsolved scientific questions. While keep the following questions in mind. Signature in the Cell is the current argument of choice for the intelligent design (ID) movement, other argu- 1. Is scientific research in this area no longer productive? ments at other times have played a similar role for The most obvious question to ask when faced with Christian apologists. Accordingly, applying the above such an argument is whether the relevant area of questions to a sampling of other works is instructive science is advancing in knowledge.

Load more