thinkevolution.net

Today’s cover story in Salon is an interview with biologist Lewis Wolpert, who argues that the propensity for religious belief is wired into our biology and is an evolutionary product of natural selection.

Wolpert is an atheist. He theorizes that the ability of early humans to understand causality—pounding this nut with this rock will break it open—enabled tool-making, which was an evolutionarily successful strategy. And thus the establishment of this causal worldview necessitated an explanation for everything:

Salon: So once you have an understanding of cause and effect, then ignorance is no longer tolerable? You want to explain everything.

Wolpert: Exactly. You know, we cannot tolerate not knowing the causes of things that affect our lives.

There’s a fairly logical flow of reason to this theory, and I’m all for thought experiments. But is this science? Perhaps Wolpert doesn’t claim any particular authority for this argument. But wait, right there in the title of his new book, Wolpert hauls in the “evolutionary explanation” juggernaut: Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: the Evolutionary Origins of Belief. The problem here is that Wolpert’s ideas may be reasoned, but they are not evidenced. Science is an evidence-based discipline. The fact that Wolpert is an eminent (developmental) biologist may only exacerbate the problem, since so much authority is accorded to scientists. You know, because their discipline is so evidentiary.

Well, despite his training and esteemed contributions to science, perhaps Wolpert has relaxed his criteria for discerning facts. But what’s this about lack of evidence for qi, the energy manipulated by acupuncturists?

Salon: Maybe the scientific instruments that we have at our disposal just can’t detect anything about qi.

Wolpert: Sorry. When they invented qi, how in the hell did they know what an energy field was? They hardly had a concept of energy. I mean, if you go back and look at their evidence, I’m afraid it was a nice set of ideas, but I’m terribly sorry, evidence matters. And that’s what causal beliefs are really about. If we believe that something has a particular cause, we should be looking for the evidence.

So evidence does matter. But so, apparently, does hubris:

Wolpert: My argument is that causal understanding gave rise to toolmaking; that was the evolutionary advantage. It’s toolmaking that’s really driven human evolution. This is not widely accepted, I’m afraid, but there’s no question about it. It’s tools that really made us human. They may even have given rise to language.

No question about it? There must be a great deal of evidence for there to be no question about it… But if there were a great deal of evidence, it would be rather well-accepted, wouldn’t it? Let me be clear: intellectual discourse makes me happy. Let’s talk about the evolution of the psyche. But let’s not imply that it’s science. Evolution is such a fun explanation to invoke, but flinging around adaptive arguments willy-nilly just gets everyone into a lather and makes actual science that much more difficult to integrate into the popular consciousness.

In an article in Friday’s New York Times, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney “clarifies” his position—which really must be rather uncomfortable—on evolution, which had been reported last week as straddling the precipitous gulf between creationism and science. “Governor Romney believes both science and faith can help inform us about the origins of life in this world,” his campaign announced after Romney did not raise his hand in answer to a May 3 debate question on whether the candidates did not believe in evolution.

But the Times article clears all this ambiguity up:

“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”

He was asked: Is that intelligent design?

“I’m not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design,” he said. “But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”

Nice to see that Romney is terrified of ID; perhaps the wedge strategy has been sufficiently dulled. I don’t care much for politicians who won’t defend a clear position, though, and I don’t think creationists should either.

But most infuriating of all was the egregious error by Times journalist Michael Luo, who described evolution as comprised of “utterly random, naturalistic processes.” Fact: natural selection, the evolutionary process responsible for adaptation, is a deterministic process, the utter opposite of a random one. This type of error is unacceptable. Better science education in schools!

Indeed, it looks like the anti-evolutionists at Uncommon Descent have jumped on the regulatory/coding DNA controversy. Well… no not really. Following the publication of an article in New Scientist that describes levels of divergence in non-coding and coding DNA between placental mammals and marsupial mammals (potentially indicating a predominance of cis-regulatory evolution since placentals and marsupials diverged), Uncommon Descent posted a entry that thoroughly misconstrues the whole situation.

A post at denialism blog tidily explains the whole mess. To sum up: the relative importance of mutations in cis-regulatory regions versus coding DNA is still unresolved. But protein-coding DNA is not the only functional DNA in our genome (or marsupials’ genomes, or anyone else’s), so calling non-coding DNA “junk” is just plain outdated. And grossly misreporting research findings while still making “scientific” arguments really doesn’t make it sound like you know what you’re talking about.

It’s just another mumbity jumbity effort from the ID camp to muddle things up. But the question is whether it’s on purpose or not. Hullabaloo suggests here that it’s an example of plain and simple stupidity. In the post itself, Uncommon Descent doesn’t capitalize on the misrepresentation of the data. But denialism blog points out that ID advocates have some sort of stake in the status of “junk DNA,” so maybe it’s a blundering attempt to twist the facts. The whole situation is rather unclear to me. I’m sure it doesn’t make sense.

After the May 5 debate in which three Republican presidential candidates indicated that they do not believe in evolution, I was pointed to this post at Hullabaloo that excerpts quotations from several well-known intellectual conservatives about their stance on evolution. The quotes, some of which demonstrate a level of equivocation that I choose to find heartening, rather than frustrating, were originally published in a New Republic article by Ben Adler.

I just learned from a post on PACFS that the Randy Olson documentary Flock of Dodos: the Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus will be shown on Showtime on May 17 at 8:30 PM EST.

Randy Olson received a PhD in Biology from Harvard University in 1984, contributed a well-respected body of research to the fields of ecology, evolution and marine biology, and received tenure in 1992 at the University of New Hampshire. But then he realized he liked making films more, and so while on leave at UNH, Olson enrolled in film school at the University of Southern California.

He has since made a number of films that explore the interface between science and the public, all with humor and, as many reviewers point out, a fair amount of “irreverence.” Read more about Randy Olson in this New York Times article published a year ago today.

For those who are bound and determined to view evolution as scandalous, here is a perfectly legitimate controversy within the discipline that just may be swelling up into a full-scale storm. The issue at hand is whether mutations in cis-regulatory regions (DNA sequences near genes that regulate their expression) or mutations in coding regions (DNA sequences that encode functional molecules) have been more important in generating the phenotypic variation necessary for diversification and adaptation. Of all the different types of DNA that make up genomes, we understand coding DNA the best. So not surprisingly, many of the mutations discovered to produce differences in phenotype—like those known to cause coat color variation in domestic cats and jaguars—have been found in coding DNA.

However, some examples of phenotypic variation map to changes in DNA surrounding the gene of interest, which control not what protein the gene encodes but how much of the protein is produced. A notable example is the bony armor in threespine stickleback fish: the difference between sticklebacks with pronounced armor and those with none has been traced to a cis-regulatory region for the gene Pitx1, a transcription factor involved in skeleton formation. Some “evo-devo” researchers who investigate evolutionary questions using these developmental biology techniques argue that striking changes in morphology, like those in threespine sticklebacks, are, in principle, more likely to be due to cis-regulatory mutations than protein-coding mutations. And thus it follows that cis-regulatory mutations must have been more evolutionarily important than protein-coding mutations in the diversification and adaptation of organismal forms.

The argument for cis-regulatory evolution is not new; this idea has garnered attention and enthusiasm since, for example, Sean Carroll published an article on the evolution of gene regulation in 2000. Criticism for this enthusiasm isn’t new either; in 2005, Jerry Coyne wrote a critical review of another of Carroll’s books, which itself was reported on in this blog. And of course myriad other articles, responses and critiques have filled the peer-reviewed and popular science literature. But the latest effort comes again from Coyne and co-author Hopi Hoekstra, in an article published in Evolution this month. In it, Hoekstra and Coyne argue that while mutation in cis-regulatory regions may be important, we don’t have nearly enough evidence to declare it the predominant vehicle for macroevolutionary change. What do you think?

The New York Times published an article on May 5 discussing whether Darwinism bolsters or undermines the conservative political agenda. The article follows a show-of-hands moment in the May 3 GOP debate, in which the ten Republican candidates were asked if they did not believe in evolution. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado raised their hands.

The traditional (ultra-) conservative perspective has been that evolution is Godless, hence immoral, hence a satantic motivator towards ubiquitous abortions and an eventual global armageddon. However, this article picks up on a trend in conservative politics to promote evolution as an argument for conventionally conservatives ideas, like “traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.” Yikes. (Interesting: a similar argument for evolutionary conservatism by David Brooks and an observation by Michael Shermer about liberal-vs-conservative attitudes towards the biology of sexual orientation neatly fold into this trend.)

Of course, misguided interpretation of evolution—just like misguided interpretation of, say, anything—is dangerous, not to mention exhausting and frustrating. Naturally, it’s not only the pro-evolution politicos who are misinterpreting Darwin’s contribution to our world-view; that position is still securely defended by the anti-evolution crowd. For example: George Gilder, who is associated with the Discovery Institute, criticized the alliance of conservative ideals with evolutionary theory by pointing out that “both Nazism and communism were inspired by Darwinism. Why conservatives should toady to these storm troopers is beyond me.” Double yikes. Can’t we all just agree that “nature is morally neutral” and that it’s the commodification of empirical research for political agendas that’s unethical?

On April 21, Dr. Ken Miller gave a lecture at the historic Wagner Free Institute of Science in Philadelphia. Turns out his talk was part of a lecture series that was established in 1912 by Richard Westbrook, a trustee of the Institute, with the deliberate purpose of encouraging open discourse on scientific subjects, especially evolutionary biology. So Miller’s material talk addressing current social and political issues surrounding evolution was made possible by the social and political issues surrounding evolution back in 1912. Or perhaps more optimistically, by the foresight and dedication of one evolutionist to the scientific education of the public about this important discipline.

Anyway, one of the best things about the talk was Miller’s use of various quotations regarding the interface of science and faith. Miller himself is a practicing Catholic, and has often argued that evolution does not threaten religious commitment. Not surprisingly, some of the most thoughtful ideas about the intersection of science and religion have come from some of the greatest scientific minds. These carefully considered, often gentle statements should be admired for their expansive perspective. So, inspired by Ken Miller’s recent lecture, here is a collection of quotations.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

–Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, First Edition, 1859

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

–Saint Augustine, 5th century

I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts… the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

–Theodosius Dobzhansky, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, 1973

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.

–Galileo Galilei, Letters to Christina of Tuscany, 17th century

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed… A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man.

–Albert Einstein, Mein Weltbild, 1931