Make a Donation

Lots of time and effort goes into creating and maintaining this site. If we've helped you, consider making a donation.  

Current Poll

I'm thinking that the new pope should be...
 

Support Us!

Buy theophiles merchandise from our store!

Evolution: The Rise of Complexity
Science, Etc.
Written by Hedy Brewer   
Friday, 20 January 2012 01:59

At Scientific American:
It’s a big step for evolution, going from a single cell focused solely on its own survival to a multicellular organism where cells coordinate and work together. Creationists often cite this jump as evidence of God’s influence, because it seems impossible that creatures could make such a brazen leap unaided. But scientists have shown that multicellularity can arise in the lab, given strong enough selective pressure.
Just ask William Ratcliff and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota. In a PNAS paper published online this week, they show how multicellular yeast can arise in less than two months in the lab. To achieve this leap, they took brewer’s yeast – a common, single celled lab organism – and grew them in a liquid medium. Once a day, they gently spun the yeast in the culture, starting the next batch with whichever cells ended up at the bottom of the tube. Because the force of spinning pulls larger things down first, clumps of cells were more likely to be at the bottom than single ones, thus setting up a strong selective pressure for multicellularity.
Comments
Search
emperorbma   |2012-01-20 16:31:56
Why would the existence of selective pressures preclude the work of God?
laika   |2012-01-20 18:32:08
A very good question. It's interesting that God was dragged into the discussion at all, but that adds a little Culture Wars interest, I suppose. Or maybe the author was unconsciously playing out a response to an imagined ID supporter.
emperorbma   |2012-01-20 19:12:13
It's funny they still conflate Creationism and ID because they are two very different things.
SteveGus   |2012-01-21 01:21:30
Yes. I don't entirely buy into the "separate magisteria" business, mostly because religions do make testable claims about history, but ultimately creation is about motive, not about method.

This is why "intelligent design" is a particularly bad formulation, especially in the public forum where the legal fiction at its core requires you to pretend no congruence between the designer and the Deity.

An intelligent designer created the universe from nothing and brought life to nonliving matter? Show me the tech. I'm clever enough. I want to play with it. Pretending that intelligent design is science is belied by its failure to follow through on the obvious research program it proposes, were it really a testable hypothesis.
emperorbma   |2012-01-21 10:27:47
SteveGus wrote:
Yes. I don't entirely buy into the "separate magisteria" business, mostly because religions do make testable claims about history, but ultimately creation is about motive, not about method.


I don't think that it is meant to be conceived as an absolute distinction on the basis of underlying reality. The basic point of this Popperian distinction was, as you said, to keep the inquiry about motive from distracting science from its intended purpose.

Certainly, there are overlapping aspects to these "magisteria" in the sense of the historical and natural claims involved. Even so, there is a rather striking distinction in the purposes of these claims in both "magisteria."

These claims, in the sense of the Biblical narrative, should, at least, have a basis in fact. However, it is entirely feasible and quite plausible that they would be presented in a different manner than modern scientifically influenced scholars are accustomed to using. Likewise, it is entirely feasible that it can omit key scientific concepts which would make the scientific presentation far less accurate.

The reason this is feasible is because "teaching science" was never the basic intent of Scripture. Sure, it might provide some useful insights if someone were open to them, but it will never reveal the entirety of the scientific operations within creation. The basic intent of Scripture's historical narratives is, essentially, to reveal that God was the ultimate cause behind them. (in the sense of being the absolute origin and sustainer of all Creation) Furthermore, it exists to draw lessons that the subsequent Biblical narratives of the Prophets and the Apostles was able to build upon.

These basic facts, naturally, would effectively have to be true but they can have a wide variety of interpretations and reconciliations with the scientific narrative of history due to the different methods used to discern them. The result of this is that we find different interpretations varying from the hyper-literal Young-Earth creation to the completely non-literal "it's all a metaphor" interpretation and everything in-between. (Naturally, I favor the more moderate position of Old-Earth Creation) The key thing to keep in mind is that God wasn't intending to give scientific insight here. It would not destroy the narrative if God was merely glossing the description of advanced concepts for the purposes of getting to the intended goal of Revelation, a relationship with His people through the Word and Spirit. Scientific concepts would have certainly been beyond the ken of those to whom He was revealing the Word and it would be understandable that they wouldn't "get" the full scientific content of it if that wasn't God's intention.

SteveGus wrote:
Pretending that intelligent design is science is belied by its failure to follow through on the obvious research program it proposes, were it really a testable hypothesis.


Unfortunately, in this case, I think I have to play "devils' advocate" despite agreeing with you in principle. The thing is that the scientists needed to provide a specific environment for the yeasts to be able to gain multicellularity. The scientists didn't directly input this, of course, but they did "design" the environment through their intelligence.

The basic concern that makes "intelligent design" bad here is that it implies the scientists had to directly design the organism. This is inaccurate. They merely provided the environment that caused the organism to need to change. The "intelligent design" debate here is whether every detail has to be a "direct conscious decision" of a demiurge (which the scientist is a surrogate for) or whether it is an accrual of beneficial mutations toward the goal of filling a niche that takes place within already-observed rules of the system. The evidence suggests the latter.

However, the basics of Divine Creation (-ism) merely require that God is in control of the entirety of creation through His Providence.  Whether or not these organisms have self-adapting capabilities should be entirely immaterial to whether or not God is the being who causes these natural principles to exist and operate.  (Notwithstanding that these self-adapting capabilities, themselves, would be a natural principle that God sustains as well.)
PineHall  - The Key Creation Principle   |2012-01-21 21:37:04
emperorbma wrote:
However, the basics of Divine Creation (-ism) merely require that God is in control of the entirety of creation through His Providence.  Whether or not these organisms have self-adapting capabilities should be entirely immaterial to whether or not God is the being who causes these natural principles to exist and operate.  (Notwithstanding that these self-adapting capabilities, themselves, would be a natural principle that God sustains as well.)

Well stated! I think that first sentence of yours in the above quote summarizes my stance as well. What is important is that God did it, not the how. I still wonder some about those details but those is minor points and something I don't worry much about.

The results of the experiment are impressive but I think it is not the blow to Creationism that the author thinks it is. And we, Christians, need to avoid the "God of the Gaps" arguments that tend eventually to get shot down.
SteveGus   |2012-01-22 00:43:30
The best test of Genesis as a scientific hypothesis is to compare it to the directly contrary hypotheses of surrounding contemporary cultures. Genesis established that creation, however it happened, was a relatively orderly and stepwise process that occurred over time. Different sorts of life appeared at different stages. It gets the universe built without copulating deities or slaying giants or monsters.
Only registered users can write comments!

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 

Our valuable member laika has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles


Statistics

Members : 38821
Content : 1256
Content View Hits : 5912715

Who's Online

We have 159 guests and 17 members online
  • emperorbma
  • rebecasure
  • Ankvkxrv
  • Eleanorettd
  • evonsemeste
  • Strangstalieno
  • Bnwvrw39
  • mxlum
  • asicsTeatteleN
  • uisgnjswx
  • Murzilka
  • uisrcfpes
  • Louiskpuc