On Evolution: Distinguishing mere beliefs from the facts

By Rick Protz

According to the recent letter, “Theology, Science Don’t Mix” (March 30), “evolutionary theory … is based on observable data.” It would, however, seem quite plain that evolution is actually based on unobservable data, if for no other reason than that the past is, by nature, unobservable, untestable and unrepeatable. Though we’d love to, we can’t go see it.

We’re often told, for instance, that the early earth had a chemical- and nutrient-rich primordial soup. Was anyone able to test its chemical composition? No. Was anyone able to observe the soup? No. Can we demonstrate its location, extent, depth, breadth, temperature and makeup? No. And because we can’t observe it, the answers to these questions are hypothetical and subject to change. They are assumptions. The scientific method is a valuable tool, but it nevertheless has its limits.

We’re also told that life began in this soup not by any plan or design, but purely by chance, that this happened once and that all life is descended from this event. This is a fundamental evolutionary belief, foundational to the whole scenario, but is it an observable data? No. Do we at present observe the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter? No. Instead, we observe that life comes from life. There is no scientific reason to believe in spontaneous generation. It is a philosophical/religious belief. It is an article of faith.

Now, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs. In fact, it’s unavoidable — we all have them. But we should be careful to maintain the distinction between belief and testable, observable fact. When it comes to origins issues, we all have the same facts, and we all base our interpretation of those facts on our own religious/philosophical perspective, scientists included. We must do this because no one could observe the origin of matter and life (except, of course, God). Thus, we are all on equal footing regarding origins — faith. Thus, also, theology and science do mix. Everyone mixes them because there is so much we don’t and can’t know through science; instead, we must believe, suppose and assume. Did you think scientists don’t have beliefs?

Is it even possible for life to arise from non-living matter, scientifically speaking — by chance? It’s an interesting question given that science is essentially the study of cause-and-effect relationships — things that are not by chance. But how does one demonstrate a chance occurrence? By definition, it may never happen again, and to structure an experiment would be to remove it from the realm of chance. It would seem that doing nothing is allowing chance to take its course, so, in fact, every day is an experimental test of whether life arises spontaneously by chance. And every day we get the same answer — no. Why is it so hard to accept that answer?

There is the additional problem of information. Life operates on the basis of coded instructions in the genes, and this information must be organized not randomly, but very precisely, for an organism to live. We can build a computer and program it, but we can’t build a single living cell and program it (it too would need a program). If we did, it would not be by chance, but by design and effort. It would seem abundantly clear that such a thing does not, and in fact could not, happen by chance.

We also have the problem of irreducible complexity. Even a mousetrap minus a single part ceases to function (again, read “Darwin’s Black Box”). Every living thing, even a single cell, is vastly more complex, with many essential structures and processes, minus any one of which the cell cannot live.

The observable data clearly points not toward, but away from, evolution.

(Protz lives in Napa.)

Napa Valley Register Copyright © 2009