sign in sign up
<<
Home , 20th century in science, Abiogenesis, Cell biology, Genetics, Miracle, Organism

Author Exchange , , and Learning from : Dennis R. Venema A Reply to Meyer Dennis R. Venema

Weizsäcker’s book The World View of is still keeping me very busy. It has again brought home to me quite clearly how wrong it is to use as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are 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 , 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 (hereafter Signature). Meyer’s origin of biological : 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 , rendering several of examples from Signature make the point my arguments superfluous. Secondly, easily: Meyer asserts that I have failed to refute … historical 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 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 evo- lution 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 and from the University of British Columbia. basic argument of Signature requires that His research interests include the genetics of patterning in , genetics education, and the interaction between and biological evolution be incapable of gen- Christian . 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 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 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 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, folds within their corresponding amino most causally adequate explanation for the origin -sequence ? … 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 and 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 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 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 strengthened or weakened the Apologetics and Science: argument since its publication? Learning from History This question becomes progressively easier to answer as 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 of tific knowledge, such as those Meyer employs in science, even a few 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 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 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. In the biological before we consider how Signature itself fares under , a quick scan of the PubMed index is usually thesamescrutiny. sufficient to answer this question.7 Even if the specific point of knowledge claimed as unsolvable by science is not directly addressed in the current literature, Edwards on , 1696 it is premature to claim that it never will be solved John Edwards’ book A Demonstration of the Existence if the field is advancing. and Providence of God from the Contemplation of the Visible of the Greater and Lesser World was 2. Is the area of science used for the argument a “frontier” published in England in 1696, and in many ways is area of science or a well-established area in which core the “Signature” of its day. The main scientific contro- ideas have not changed significantly for some time? versies of the time perceived to threaten Christian Frontier science differs greatly from areas in which faith were centered on astronomy, Copernican helio- science is more settled (so-called “consensus” or centrism in particular. While Edwards argues against “textbook” science).8 In the absence of a well-tested heliocentrism using both Scriptural10 and to inform research, investigators in the field arguments, we will focus only on the latter. Key to explore numerous competing hypotheses. These his argument for a stationary in a geocentric hypotheses, should they find experimental support, is the scientific fact that the movement of may, in the future, become part of a more theory-like the earth can be felt: framework, though they will likely be modified in Again, I argue thus, the Motion of the Earth can the process. Additionally, many hypotheses will be be felt, or it cannot: If they hold it cannot, they are discarded along the way. In this “wild west” environ- confuted by Earth-quakes … I mean the gentler ment, researchers critique competing hypotheses vig- Tremblings of the Earth, of which there are abun- orously, pointing out what they perceive as flaws and dant Instances in History, and we our selves have shortcomings. This is all well and good, for any had one not long since; so that by too true an exper- explanatory framework worthy of the term “theory,” iment we are taught that the Earth’s Motion may in the scientific , must survive this trial by be felt. If this were not a thing that had been fre- experimental and peer-reviewed fire.9 Frontier sci- quently experienc’d, I confess they might have ence, by its very nature, is not stable for the purposes something to say, they put us off with this, that it is of developing apologetics arguments. It is simply not not possible to perceive the moving of the Earth: possible to argue from a position of scientific strength But now they cannot evade it thus; they must be

Volume 63, Number 3, September 2011 185 Author Exchange Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: A Reply to Meyer

forc’d to ackowlegd the motion of it is sensible. If the ID argument from information. A historical sur- then they hold this, I ask why this Motion also vey of this line of argumentation in ID circles will which they speak of is not perceived by us? Can a bring those to light. Ironically, this survey Man perswade himself that the light Trepidation of will also further make the case that the supposed this Element can be felt, and yet the rapid Circum- failure of biological evolution to generate new infor- volution of it cannot? Are we presently apprehen- mation is much more a part of Meyer’s argument sive of the Earth’s shaking never so little under us? than his response to my review would suggest, and, And yet have no apprehension at all of our contin- indeed, has been so since its inception. ual capering about the ?11 Edwards draws additional scientific support for a sta- tionary earth from other observations of physics: Lester and Bohlin on Information Nay, truly, if the earth were hurl’d about in a Circle Theory and Created Kinds, 1984 (as these Persons assert) we should feel it to our In 1984, a substantial work on genetics and crea- sorrow, for we should not be able to keep our ground, but must necessarily be thrown off, and all tionism appeared: Lane Lester and Raymond Boh- 16 Houses and other Buildings would be thrown lin’s book The Natural Limits to Biological Change. down, being forcibly shaked off from the Circum- Though written some twenty-five years before Signa- ference of the Earth, as things that are laid on a ture, many arguments are familiar. For example, Wheel are flung off by it when it turns round. This while discussing the possibility that in reg- you will find demonstrated by Dr. More.12 ulatory regions of DNA might lead to changes out- side of a “created kind,”17 Lester and Bohlin argue Note several features. Edwards is arguing from that the possibility is as unlikely as the natural origin science, and doing so appropriately for his time. of the universal . Moreover, a natural ori- Earthquakes can indeed be felt, and objects placed on gin for the code is absurd, since codes are uniquely a spinning wheel do indeed off. He also discusses the product of intelligence: a failed attempt to observe the effect of stellar parallax, a key prediction of the heliocentric model. As he sees … couldn’t mutation and change it, the science of his time is conclusive and agrees the rules of regulatory mechanisms to produce bio- with the longstanding geocentric view of the church. logical novelty? The answer lies in the origin-of-life As such, he sees only folly in “Copernicus’s Gigantick question. Informational codes are constructed of Attempt to raise up the Earth into the place of the Heav- vocabulary and grammar. Both, of necessity, are produced only by intelligence. To argue that the ens.”13 Edwards’ premature conclusions are easy to genetic information in DNA originated originally see in retrospect (question #3) because we have the as random interactions seems analo- benefit of over three hundred years of scientific prog- gous to claiming that the word processor, rather ress since the 1600s. Still, he failed to take a cautionary than the person operating it, actually authored a stance, even though the science under consideration given book. Random changes in letter and word was both progressing rapidly for its time (question #1) sequences ultimately can produce only gibberish. and very much a frontier area (question #2). Indeed, The same will result if one attempts to change the even at the time of its publication, Edwards should rules.18 have been aware that Newton’s work lent helio- centrism considerable theoretical support.14 Notice how, in this argument, developmental pro- grams for the various created kinds are a series of Critics may cry foul at this point: surely there are informational codes. As such, like the genetic code no parallels between the geocentrism debacle and itself, they are clearly the result of a designing the ID movement and their argument from informa- intelligence. tion. After all, this argument, Meyer assures us, is based only on cutting-edge science and an argument A later section makes the point a second time. from knowledge of absence gained through a compre- After a discussion of similarities and differences be- hensive historical survey of abiogenesis research.15 tween and chimpanzee (in a Whereas evaluating the total failure of seventeenth- manner that emphasizes their differences as a prob- century geocentrist apologetics is easy from a mod- lem for evolution), Lester and Bohlin look to the ern vantage point, similar trends are present within application of to genetics as the

186 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Dennis R. Venema

next step for the creationist movement. Specifically, It is clear that, at this time, Meyer’s argument they state that this application will demonstrate two from information viewed specified genetic informa- things: that intelligent design is needed for the origin tion in very broad terms, in keeping with Lester and of the genetic code, as well as for the origin of infor- Bohlin’s earlier thinking. Moreover, Meyer’s argu- mation for each created kind: ment that only intelligence creates information is However, in terms of the mechanism of limited predicated on his assertion that “standard material- variation, the application of information theory to istic versions of evolutionary theory (either biologi- the genetic machinery should prove the most cal or chemical)” have failed to deliver the goods. promising. The crucial factor will be delineation of Note well: the alleged failures of both biological and the necessity of intelligent design in the structuring chemical evolution are presented as equally important of the informational content of each prototype. for supporting Meyer’s familiar argument that This will indicate the necessity of not only intelli- … the or information content gence in originating the genetic code in the broad of DNA and proteins implies a prior intelligent universal sense but also, in the specific sense, of the cause, again because “specified complexity” and unique adaptive programs of each prototype. “high information content” constitute a distinc- (emphasis in the original)19 tive hallmark (or signature) of intelligence. Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of high information content or specified complex- Meyer on Biological Evolution ity, experience has shown that intelligent design and Information, 1999 played a causal role.23 The argument from information thus has a long his- As we have seen above, this argument is central to tory within the ID movement, tracing back to its earli- Signature. Given his position in 1999, it is surprising est roots. More importantly for our purposes, Lester that Meyer claims that evidence for new information and Bohlin’s line of argument is also present within arising through biological evolution is of no import Meyer’s works. As Meyer notes, he wrote several to his argument. articles on the origin of biological information while Signature was in preparation.20 One of the earliest is in an edited volume detailing the exchange between Meyer on Biological Evolution Denis Lamoureux and Phillip Johnson in the late and Information, 2004 21 . In this essay, we find that Meyer’s defense of The use of this argument is not an isolated case for Johnson includes the claim that the origin of all forms Meyer, but also forms a substantial portion of his of biological information is equally mysterious: 2004 paper published in, and subsequently with- If for example, the teleological evolutionist seeks to drawn from, the Proceedings of the Biological Society avoid the information-theoretic difficulties dis- of Washington.24 In a discussion of the evidence for cussed above by invoking undirected chance to ex- random mutation and natural selection acting over plain the origin of genetic information, his position time to generate novelty, Meyer makes the following becomes indistinguishable from standard materi- claims: alistic versions of evolutionary theory (either bio- Yet the extreme specificity and complexity of pro- logical or chemical) that Johnson and many others teins presents a difficultly, not only for the chance have criticized on empirical, methodological, and origin of specified biological information (i.e., for theological grounds. (In any case, it should be random mutations acting alone), but also for selec- noted that neo- has failed every bit as tion and mutation acting in concert. Indeed, muta- much as chemical evolutionary theory to provide genesis experiments cast doubt on each of the two a mechanism that can explain the origin of speci- scenarios by which neo-Darwinists envisioned fied genetic information—whether the informa- new information arising from the mutation/selec- tion required to build novel genes, cell types, tion mechanism … For neo-Darwinism, new func- organs, molecular machines, developmental pro- tional genes either arise from non-coding sections grams, or plans that have arisen during the in the or from preexisting genes. Both on earth.)22 scenarios are problematic …

Volume 63, Number 3, September 2011 187 Author Exchange Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: A Reply to Meyer

Evolving genes and proteins will range through a 1. Is scientific research in this area no longer productive? series of nonfunctional intermediate sequences At all time points examined, and, indeed, over the that natural selection will not favor or preserve but entire twenty- period, biological evolution was will, in all , eliminate … When this hap- a productive area of scientific inquiry. As such, argu- pens, selection-driven evolution will cease. At this ments based on perceived failings of evolution were point, neutral evolution of the genome (unhinged likely to be challenged as new evidence arose. As we from selective pressure) may ensue, but, as we have seen, such a process must overcome immense shall see, this was very much the case. probabilistic hurdles, even granting cosmic time. 2. Is the area of science used for the argument a “frontier” Thus, whether one envisions the evolutionary pro- area of science or a well-established area in which core cess beginning with a noncoding region of the ideas have not changed significantly for some time? genome or a preexisting functional , the func- While biological evolution as a whole was not a fron- tional specificity and complexity of proteins tier area during this time, several lines of inquiry impose very stringent limitations on the efficacy of within it were new or rapidly expanding. In 1984, mutation and selection. In the first case, the field of evolutionary , or must arise first, before natural selection can act to “evo-devo” was comparatively nonexistent. In 1999, favor a model variation. In the second case, func- comparative was in its infancy, and some tion must be continuously maintained in order to areas of such as ancestral prevent deleterious (or lethal) consequences to the protein reconstruction were just getting off the and to allow further evolution. Yet the complexity and specificity of proteins implies that ground. In 2004, the chimpanzee both these conditions will be extremely difficult to remained incomplete. As such, the ID argument meet. Therefore, the neo-Darwinian mechanism from information would need to the storm appears to be inadequate to generate the new infor- of new evidence from these advances in order to mation present in the novel genes and proteins that remain viable. arise within the Cambrian .25 3. Has scientific progress strengthened or weakened the Here Meyer again argues against an evolutionary ori- argument since its publication? gin of information, and once again biological evolution This question is, of course, the crucial one. An argu- is in view (in this instance, exclusively so). Specifi- ment is only as good as its ability to withstand new cally, Meyer argues (relying heavily on the works of data. Unfortunately for the ID argument from infor- Axe) that functional protein sequences are separated mation, the robust ability of biological evolution to by nonfunctional intermediates, and that neutral evo- generate new information has been increasingly doc- lution cannot be evoked to between umented in recent years. Let me cite a few examples. functional forms. Novel biological information does not need to One might wonder: if biological evolution was arise all at once, but can arise piecemeal through viewed as a potential threat to Meyer’s argument independent mutation events. For example, separate in 1999 or 2004, why does Meyer not address any mutations that do not confer a selectable advantage evidence for the ability of biological evolution to on their own have been shown to combine later to generate information in Signature? Applying the form new information. In other words, mutations above diagnostic questions to this argument may that are neutral with respect to the survival of be informative. the organism can later be co-opted into biological information that does have a distinct survival advantage.27 Evaluating the ID Argument Contrary to Meyer’s assertion in his 2004 essay from Information, 1984–2004 that proteins cannot transition to new information Having surveyed the historical importance of bio- states via neutral intermediates, laboratory “resur- logical evolution to the ID argument from evolution, rection” of ancient protein sequences has shown we are now able to apply our test questions to this good evidence that such neutral intermediate states apologetic as it was argued during this time.26 do play a key role in protein evolution.28 New com-

188 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Dennis R. Venema

parative genomics approaches indicate that such ing, it continues to do so for Signature. Neither does changes in protein structure and function through Meyer provide a rationale why it should not, nor evolutionary mechanisms are widespread.29 Indeed, why his previous argument, recycled from these there is strong evidence that large regions of modern earlier essays and woven throughout Signature, , including the , remains valid. are the product of whole-genome duplication events hundreds of millions of years in our evolutionary Whether in 1984 or 2004, the ID movement would past. This further adds to the list of proteins that have done well to consider questions such as I have have acquired new functions, and thus represent presented here before building an apologetic on the new biological information.30 presumed failure of evolutionary biology. Perhaps a greater concern for the ID argument from informa- Contrary to Lester and Bohlin, and Meyer’s 1999 tion, beyond the failure of its inherent logic that essay, evolutionary developmental biology has accu- information arises only through intelligence, is that mulated strong evidence that novel body plans and the balance of its arguments rest on a similarly pre- developmental programs are accessible to evolution- carious foundation. As we shall see, Signature itself ary mechanisms, specifically, through small muta- does not fare well under the same questions. tions that alter the expression patterns of key regulatory genes.31 The large biological differences 1. Is scientific research in this area no longer productive? between and chimpanzees, despite our close Contrary to Meyer’s claim, abiogenesis research is genetic relationship,32 is entirely consistent with this not at an impasse. Knowledge in this area is advanc- conclusion.33 ing, and has done so even since the publication of Signature. Some of this work even threatens Meyer’s Taken together, these advances render the biolog- remaining arguments (see below). ical evolution component of the ID argument from information null and void. What seemed a strong 2. Is the area of science used for the argument a “frontier” argument in 1984, 1999, and 2004 has been weighed area of science or a well-established area in which core and found wanting. ideas have not changed significantly for some time? One of Meyer’s significant criticisms of my review is that Meyer on Chemical Evolution Discerning readers will notice that Venema did not and Information, 2009 offer what would have been necessary to refute the Why is it that Meyer chose to avoid the topic of bio- thesis of the book, namely, a causally adequate logical evolution in Signature, when hitherto it was alternative explanation for the origin of the infor- a consistent part of the argument from information, mation necessary to produce the first life. Instead, he effectively concedes the main argument of the even within his own works? Certainly, the sheer size book by acknowledging that “no such mechanism of Signature raises the possibility that Meyer needed … has been put forward.”34 to trim the argument to what he felt made the stron- gest case. Even so, this may be informative: it sug- As I noted in my review, Meyer here is correct (except gests that Meyer himself realizes that arguments for his claim, that I only admit so “grudgingly,” which against biological evolution as a generator of biologi- is not the case).35 The origin of life is an unsolved area cal information are seriously compromised com- of /biology and as such is a frontier area of pared to arguments based on chemical evolution. science in which many competing hypotheses are Accordingly, Meyer focuses on abiogenesis in Signa- under investigation. There is no consensus in the field ture, though, as we have seen, vestiges of the full about how life arose, though some models (such as the argument that includes biological evolution persist RNA world hypothesis) currently have more experi- within it. What is absent from Signature, however, is mental support than others. As such, no one has a the admission that the logic that only intelligence “causally adequate alternative explanation” to offer. produces information has failed. In 1999 and 2004, Where I differ from Meyer is that I do not see this state Meyer states that this logic covers both biological of affairs as reason to assert that the science has con- and chemical evolution. His protests notwithstand- clusively failed and divine intervention is necessary.

Volume 63, Number 3, September 2011 189 Author Exchange Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: A Reply to Meyer

3. Has scientific progress strengthened or weakened the Meyer provides no convincing reason why these argument since its publication? affinities are present in what he views as a chemically The answer to this question is one that even the most arbitrary code. If the code truly is arbitrary and has stalwart supporter of ID should find troubling. Not no stereochemical basis, then there is no reason to find two years from the publication of Signature, evidence the sorts of affinities that have been documented. from origin-of-life research has already been put for- Meyer is at pains to demonstrate that unsolved ques- ward that, by Meyer’s own admission, threatens the tions remain and that the work of Yarus does not argument of the book. As I stated in my original explain the complete origin of the code, and rightly so: review, this is work in a frontier area. Unsolved issues are to be expected. It is highly unlikely that any one A rhetorical thread that Meyer weaves throughout the book is that the genetic code is arbitrary: that, paper could put forward a complete explanation at in principle, any codon could have been assigned this time. Science seldom overthrows apologetics to any since there is no physical connec- arguments in one fell swoop: experience indicates tion between them. Meyer claims that this feature that a gradual erosion is more likely. Meyer is already of the apparatus is a “mystery” for ori- defending his argument against new evidence. I sus- gin-of-life research … pect that trend will continue in the coming years.40 However, Meyer either avoids, or is simply unaware of, a significant amount of research in this area that has demonstrated chemical interactions Conclusion between amino and their cognate anticodons In summary, what we see in Signature is the pared- or codons. This productive area of research was down remnant of what was once a larger argument recently reviewed in extensive detail. In brief, sev- within the ID movement, and indeed within Meyer’s eral amino acids directly bind RNA sequences cor- own works. The reason for the paring down is obvi- responding to their anticodon or codon. This ous: , experimental evolution, finding is strong evidence that the genetic code and developmental biology have shed too much light was established, at least in part, by the exact sort of on the ability of biological evolution to generate chemical interactions that Meyer explicitly denies information. As such, only the frontier science of have ever been found. If, indeed, the genetic code abiogenesis remains apologetically useful. Meyer was arbitrary, there would be no reason to expect expects it will continue to be useful for some time these correspondences; conversely, their presence yet, and it likely will be for the foreseeable future. is good evidence that the modern genetic code Indeed, it may endure beyond his or my lifetime. passed through a “stereochemical era” where pro- After all, John Edwards did not live to see the vindi- teins were synthesized by direct organization on cation of heliocentrism, and his argument for God an RNA template, consonant with the hypothesis supernaturally sustaining the fires of the sun and that RNA was the original genetic material.36 stars41 remained a puzzle until the discovery of solar In reply, Meyer states that fusion in the twentieth century, over 200 years later. Signature does argue that the current genetic code It may well be that the ID movement has at last (as well as the text itself) defies explanation by ref- reduced their argument from information to its en- erence to stereochemical affinities. Signature also during , but I have my doubts: abiogenesis as asserts that this fact renders self-organizational a field remains productive, and recent developments explanations for the origin of the genetic code have already begun to erode Meyer’s claims. Only problematic. Thus, the claim by Yarus et al. to have time will tell. Until then, I recommend Bonhoeffer’s explained the origin of the code by reference to wise counsel. g stereochemical affinities alone, does challenge one important scientific claim of Signature (although Notes not its main argument).37 1Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, enlarged Confronted with this evidence, Meyer is, not surpris- ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1972), 311. 2Dennis R. Venema, “Seeking a Signature: Essay Book ingly, concerned with rebutting it to the best of his Review of Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for 38 abilities. The accuracy and strength of that rebuttal Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer,” Perspectives on is not my main concern here,39 though I note that Science and Christian Faith 62, no. 4 (2010): 276–83.

190 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Dennis R. Venema

3See Stephen C. Meyer, “Of and (Straw) Men: 11John Edwards, A Demonstration of the Existence and A Response to Dennis Venema’s Review of Signature in the Providence of God from the Contemplation of the Visible Structure Cell,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 63, no. 3 of the Greater and Lesser World (: 1696), 45–6. (2011): 171–82. As Meyer repeats in his reply, 12Ibid., 46. Indeed, whenever we find specified information— 13Ibid., 49. whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in 14Indeed, a fourth question to keep in mind is whether an a stone monument, etched on a magnetic disc, apologetics argument misrepresents the state of scientific or produced by a genetic or knowledge current to its time. For example, in my original engineering experiment—and we trace it back to review, I contend that Signature does so in several places, its source, invariably we come to a mind, not merely especially with regard to the RNA world hypothesis. I will a material process. (p. 174) not, however, point out such flaws in the following histori- Note how the assertion continues to claim that all informa- cal survey of apologetics arguments but rather grant, in tion, whatever its nature, is derived only from intelligent arguendo, that they were correct representations of the sci- sources. ence of their day, despite this being manifestly not the case. 4Venema, “Seeking a Signature.” 15See Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the 5This series of posts appeared on the BioLogos blog Science Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: Harper Collins and the Sacred (www.biologos.org/blog) and had six parts: Publishers, 2009), 376. Dennis Venema, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological 16Lane Lester and Raymond Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Information, Part 1: Intelligent Design,” March 20, 2011, Biological Change (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984). http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-origin-of- 17Lester and Bohlin use the terms “kind,” “created kind,” and biological-information-part-1-intelligent-design “prototype” interchangeably. The sense is exactly what is ———, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information, called a “baramin” by other creationists. Part 2: E. coli vs. ID,” March 24, 2011, http:// biologos.org/ 18Lester and Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, blog/evolution-and-the-origin-of-biological-information- 159. part-2-e-coli-vs-id 19Ibid., 167. ———, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information, 20See Meyer, Signature, 347. Part 3: CSI on ,” April 7, 2011, http://biologos.org/ 21See pages 101–2 of Stephen Meyer, “Teleological Evolution: blog/evolution-and-the-origin-of-biological-information- The Difference It Doesn’t Make” in Darwinism Defeated? part-3-csi-on-steroids The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate over Biological Origins, Phillip ———, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information, Johnson and Denis Lamoureux (Vancouver: Regent College Part 4: Lost in (Sequence) Space,” April 25, 2011, http:// Publishing, 1999), 91–102. biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-origin-of-biological- 22Ibid., 102–3. information-part-4 23Ibid., 92–3. ———, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information, 24Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and Part 5: Paralogs, Synteny and WGD,” May 19, 2011, http:// the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” originally published in biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-origin-of-biological- Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117, no. 2 information-part-5 (2004): 213–39, but subsequently withdrawn. Text available ———, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological Information, online at www.discovery.org/a/2177 Part 6: A Long Look in the Mirror,” July 7, 2011, http:// 25Ibid. biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-origin-of-biological- 26As mentioned before, the fourth question (that of scientific information-part-6 accuracy of the apologetic at the time it was made; see 6In his reply, Meyer bases his complaint on the assertion that footnote 14) will not be addressed, though significant flaws I have not read him carefully enough. I submit, based on of this nature are present for each time point sampled. the foregoing analysis (as well as my survey of the history 27Venema, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological Informa- of the argument from information within the ID move- tion, Part 2: E. coli vs. ID.” ment and Meyer’s own works, see below), that a second 28Venema, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological Informa- possibility is that I am reading him too closely for his . tion, Part 3: CSI on Steroids.” 7US National Library of , National Institutes of 29Venema, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological Informa- , www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ tion, Part 4: Lost in (Sequence) Space.” Note that this 8Henry Bauer, “Frontier Science and Textbook Science,” evidence is also relevant to Meyer’s continued use of Axe Science & Studies 4, no. 3 (1986): 33–4. in Signature. 9Indeed, the absence of such internal criticism and sharpen- 30Venema, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological ing of ideas is a notable difference between science and the Information, Part 5: Paralogs, Synteny and WGD.” ID movement. Despite the range of mutually incompatible 31Sean B. Carroll, “Evo-Devo and an Expanding Evolution- views held within the ID “big tent,” members of the move- ary Synthesis: A Genetic Theory of Morphological Evolu- ment appear unwilling to critique each other academically. tion,” Cell 134 (2008): 25–36. 10His scriptural arguments are also a fascinating study, 32Dennis R. Venema, “Genesis and the Genome: Genomics however. For example, he specifically rules out that God Evidence for Human- Common Ancestry and Ancestral used what we would call “accommodated ” to Hominid Sizes,” Perspectives on Science and describe the of the long day in Joshua 10. Christian Faith 62, no. 3 (2010): 166–78.

Volume 63, Number 3, September 2011 191 Author Exchange Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Learning from History: A Reply to Meyer

33Venema, “Evolution and the Origin of Biological Informa- act as a general RNA polyermase: A. Wochner, J. Attwater, tion, Part 6: A Long Look in the Mirror.” A. Coulson, and P. Holliger, “Ribozyme-Catalyzed Tran- 34Meyer, “Of Molecules and (Straw) Men,” 189. scription of an Active Ribozyme,” Science 322 (2011): 209–12. 35Contrary to Meyer’s assumption, scientists enjoy areas of The point is not that this (or any) paper at present solves the science in which there are challenges yet to be solved. origin-of-life question, but rather that the field as a whole 36Venema, “Seeking a Signature,” 280–1. continues to advance. 37See footnote #32 in Meyer’s reply. The main argument, 41As Edwards writes in “A Demonstration,” speaking of presumably, is that the origin of life itself remains unsolved the and sun: (what Meyer elsewhere calls the “thesis” of Signature). This stupendous Magnitude argues the Greatness, 38My critique seems to have been the impetus for Meyer to yea the Immensity and Incomphrensiblenes of their write an entire paper in reply. See Stephen C. Meyer and Maker. And if it be ask’d, Whence is that Fewel for Paul A. Nelson, “Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be those vast Fires, which continually burn? Whence is Explained by Direct RNA Templating?” BIO-Complexity 2 it that they are not spent and exhausted? How are (2011). those flames fed? None can resolve these Questions 39Though it should come as no surprise that I have my but the Almighty Creator, who bestowed upon them reservations about it as well. their Being; who made them thus Great and 40A scan of recent literature supports this prediction. One Wonderful, that in them we might read his example is a study that has engineered a short RNA that can Existence, his Power, his Providence … (p. 61)

67th Annual Meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation

Science, Faith, and the Media: Communicating Beyond Books Point Loma Nazarene University San Diego, CA July 20–23, 2012

“Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.” –Ephesians 4:25, NIV

Some of the ways of communicating (beyond books) include film, TV, radio, Internet, and social networking. The 2012 Conference will bring ASA members together with leaders in various communication industries. These leaders will share their thoughts and ideas about ways of using modern media to communicate with the general public regarding issues of science, faith, and the interaction between the two. Another major meeting theme will address how the media, in general, currently portray Christians, scientists, and scientists who are Christians, and, to the extent that misconceptions exist, how they can be changed. Plenary and parallel sessions and activities currently being planned include the following: • Plenary and seminar presentations by science, , communication, journalism, and film studies professors and industry professionals • Plenary interviews and round table discussions involving film, radio, and TV studio executives, actors, directors, and producers • Seminar presentations by members from The Science and Entertainment Exchange of the National Academy of Sciences, www.scienceandentertainmentexchange.org • Tracks on use of social networking, Internet, alternative media, and marketing • Movie Night in “The Greek,” America’s oldest outdoor amphitheater

192 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith