New Site for Imago Dei

The new link to Imago Dei is www.imago-dei.net. I'm still making pots of changes to the site, so please excuse the dust for the next few weeks. Please change your links. Thanks to everyone who visited me here, and I hope you like the new site.

Changes Coming

There are going to be quite a few positive changes in Imago Dei in the next week or so (if all goes according to plan). Please excuse any strange formatting you see here for a while until the plan comes together.

Truth and the Limits of Science

My mind has been a blur for the last few days regarding all of the posts regarding the goal (and/or limitations) of science found here, Letters From Babylon (both John and Joshua), The Dawn Treader,Midwestern Mugwump Back of the Envelope, and New Covenant. Sorry if I’ve missed any links. I agree with Jeff that this is a wonderful opportunity to hone our thinking about this important issue. Personally, my brain has been on overdrive the past few days contemplating these issues.

I would have to agree with Donald that the actual differences between the views that John and I hold are very small. In fact, I’ve read over all of the posts with this in mind. I’m going to try to clarify some of these issues.

My first post was specifically addressing the ID issue, specifically whether we should be allowed to proffer non-naturalistic explanations for empirical data if the data point in that direction. If I read him correct, John from LFB is concerned that our present notion of science incorporates many aspects that science should have no influence in, namely non-naturalistic topics such as ethics. Regarding this point I completely agree. Today, science is regarded as authoritarian regarding many issues it should have very little influence on. The fact that Kerry grounds his advocacy of killing humans in the embryonic stage of development by comparing “science” to “ideology”, and this report that science can give us information regarding same sex marriage from DNA analysis are examples of this. As I’ve said often regarding bioethics – science can tell us if an entity is a human being. Science cannot tell us how we should treat other human beings. The answer to that query is beyond the scope of science.

The question is how do we address this invasion of metaphysics into what is known as “science”? John (and Randy) recommends that we attempt to limit the definition of science to only include empirical data (which I agree), as well as empirical conclusions (which I disagree). This way, the limitations of science will be apparent, and the metaphysical elements will be removed from scientific inquiry.

I understand this, and am in support of any effort to identify metaphysical elements in science and expose them. That is predominantly what Phil Johnson has done - he has uncovered the philosophic naturalistic bent to much of the scientific inquiry in the area of origins. The result of this naturalistic presupposition has been the uncritical acceptance of the macro-evolutionary paradigm, with the resultant overlap of naturalistic evolutionary theory into other fields, such as ethics and psychology.

John and Randy’s recommendation is that science should acknowledge when there is a limitation of science, and should not merely assert a theory because it is naturalistic. John writes:

Rather, by answering no while maintaining science’s naturalistic definition, we admit that science, being the study of the physically observable, cannot answer all questions. Maybe theories of origins that are purely naturalistic (i.e., do not invoke any supernatural agent) are insufficient to explain the full complexity and diversity of living forms. If that is so, then we must conclude that science cannot account for the full complexity and diversity of living forms.

And…

Consider now the second scenario, one in which the naturalistic and supernatural explanations are truly incompatible.* Which one do we choose to believe? Reflexively in our culture, or to someone committed to philosophical naturalism, the choice is clear: the scientific theory is right and, moreover, it has disproven the supernatural one.

This highlights a concern I have with his view. I believe we can agree that our culture accepts “scientific” truth as synonymous with knowledge. On the other hand, our culture sees fields such as philosophy and theology as synonymous with “belief”. Science, as the sole carrier of knowledge in the public eye, will trump any consideration of “beliefs” such as ethics (See Kerry’s stem cell stance). How do we change this? How can we place science in its proper position? Merely attempting to limit the definition of science will not be adequate in my opinion.

Moreover science is trumped as being the answer to all of our questions (excellent post by Rusty on this here). Science itself is and will be unwilling to admit that it cannot answer any question, so merely insisting that it does so will not work.

So what do we do? I agree that we should expose metaphysical aspects in science as such. We need to show that many of the conclusions found in evolutionary biology are based on an a priori commitment to the metaphysical philosophy of naturalism. We need to critically analyze the data and bring to light the areas that are not supportive of naturalistic conclusions.

One thing I do want to make clear is that some sort of weak methodological naturalism is necessary in science. We should first seek naturalistic explanations, and then look for others when the data does not fit the naturalistic paradigm. This is precisely what Dembski’s explanatory filter accomplishes. First we look to see if there is a naturalistic explanation and only if it is clear that the data are pointing away from a naturalistic explanation do we entertain supernatural theories. However, I don’t believe we have to reject supernatural explanations out of hand.

We have to very careful about what I call “methodological supernaturalism”. We should investigate claims of the supernatural to the same extent that we investigate naturalistic claims. We should not accept supernatural theories when naturalistic theories fit the data better. I believe many of the present miracle claims err on this point. Every time we assert a supernatural explanation for a natural event we inevitably decrease our credibility when discussing true miracles like the resurrection. I’ll explain this more in a future post.

I could write far more about this, but this will have to do for now. I agree with those who state that ideally our culture should have a limited view of science, and science should not be seen as the most reliable indicator of truth. I also believe that scientific naturalistic explanations, when the data support them, do not impose a problem with the Christian worldview. In fact we need to accept them if the data point that way. However, I do not believe it will be effective for us to accept the strong form of methodological naturalism when conducting science because the scientific community simply uses their metaphysics to dismiss non-naturalistic theories even if they fit the data better. I have a great quote on this by Jay Richards in the latest issue of Touchstone that I will try to include later with an update.

One last question: how should we view the work of the intelligent design movement? Is it a friend or foe to evangelical Christianity? Thanks to all for the great opportunity to spend some time on this important issue.

Update: Here is the quote from Jay Richards in the July/August issue of Touchstone (pp47-48):

If the materialistic definition of science and the evidence are in conflict, should we go with the definition or the evidence? To ask the question, as they say, is to answer it. Scientia means knowledge. The essence of natural science is the search for knowledge of the natural world. Knowledge is an intrinsic good. If we are properly scientific, then, we will seek to be open to the natural world, not decide beforehand what it is allowed to reveal.

The materialistic definition of science is no mere philosophical trifle. It dictates what may be discussed, funded, and published, at least within official circles. It dictates what is taught in schools, and thus what worldview young people imbibe in courses that pretend not to be teaching a worldview at all, but only objective, "value neutral" science. This cultural and institutional power makes materialistic science look loke an unyielding structure, extending invincibly into the clouds like Jack's Beanstalk.

Consent, Sex, and the Prenatal Rapist

I've been in serious negatiations with Steve Thomas and his agent to have him join me here at Imago Dei. Steve is a classmate of mine at Biola and an incredibly sharp thinker and writer. I hope to have him blogging here soon, but in the meantime here is an article he recently published with Frank Beckwith in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. It is an excellent response to Eileen McDonaugh's reinterpretation of Judith Jarvis Thompson's violinist argument. McDonaugh attempts to make the point (similar to this post) that the fetus is an unwelcome intruder, analagous to a rapist, and therefore a woman should have the right to have an abortion just like she has the right to kill an intruder in her home. Beckwith and Thomas respond with a few counterexamples:

Consider the following scenario. A young woman is involved in a car accident and is rendered unconscious by her injuries. She is brought to a hospital where, still comatose, she is examined by a doctor. While performing some tests, the doctor determines that the woman has been pregnant for several weeks. Furthermore, suppose that evidence comes to light to suggest that the woman is unaware of her pregnancy; perhaps her close friends know nothing of the pregnancy, her diary shows no knowledge of being pregnant, and so on.

Adopting McDonagh's understanding of pregnancy as morally equivalent to rape or assault, what is the doctor's obligation to this unconscious patient? It would seem that, under these conditions, the doctor is morally required to perform an abortion to rid his patient of the "massive intrusion" being imposed upon her by her unborn offspring. After regaining consciousness, the woman would have to be told that she's undergone an abortion for a pregnancy of which she was not aware, for there was good evidence that no consent had been given and that she was under assault.

We submit that this conclusion, logically drawn, is grossly incompatible
with our moral intuitions concerning pregnancy.

Read the whole thing.

Post updated to correct the punctuation errors from importing the text from Acrobat.

Must the Nature of Science be Purely Naturalistic?

John at Letters From Babylon has a well thought out comment about this post of mine regarding the nature of science. LFB is one of my daily stops, and I greatly respect the viewpoint of the bloggers there. He disagrees with my argument that science can include supernatural explanations for empirically observable events:

Though I greatly respect these Christian thinkers, I must disagree. Instead, I argue that the goal of science is to describe the natural world naturalistically and provide an increasingly useful model of physical principles. Of the two options given by Serge, then, the latter is the better—science’s task is to “come up with the best naturalistic explanation for complex phenomena.” It might be that early practitioners of modern science embraced a broader, grander goal of knowing truth. But even if that is so, I think it is now prudent to accept a narrower goal and scope of science and to limit science’s authority to a “naturalistic” framework. The basis for this limitation is that science’s data is limited to the physically observable. That science is able to study only what is physically observable provides justification for the statement that “science can only tell us about the material world,” at least directly.

For clarification, I would agree that science can only study what is physically observable. For instance, in no way do I believe that we can detect the presence of the Holy Spirit by scientific instrumentation. The evidence in science consists of what we can observe empirically. That is not in question. The question is whether we have to accept naturalistic explanations for such empirical observations even if all of the data point to a supernatural cause?

Why does science need to be limited in this way? Why can’t we see if the physical evidence we have fits into a theory with supernatural elements? In my opinion, this handcuffs our ability to explore our world in unacceptable ways. I’ll give two examples.

William Dembski has proposed an explanatory filter in order to detect specified complexity. This article by Frank Beckwith in the Christian Research Journal explains this process better than I:

Detecting Specified Complexity. At the core of the ID research program are criteria that proponents claim can be used to detect or falsify design. Dembski offers one such criterion. He posits an explanatory filter in order to detect specified complexity (SC), something we recognize as evidence of intelligent agency in many fields, such as “forensic science, intellectual property law, insurance claims investigation, cryptography, and random number generation.”13 Dembski proposes that we extend these insights, which have proved fruitful in other fields, to the natural sciences.

According to Dembski, “Whenever we infer design, we must establish three things — contingency, complexity and specification. Contingency, by which we mean that an event was one of several possibilities, ensures that the object is not the result of an automatic and hence unintelligent process.”14 In other words, an event that is not contingent is one that can be completely accounted for by natural law (or an algorithm). For instance, a salt crystal “results from forces of chemical necessity that can be described by the laws of chemistry. A setting of silverware does not.”15

“Complexity,” writes Dembski, “ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance.”16 For Dembski, “complexity…is a form of probability.”17 For example, because the improbability of opening a combination lock by chance depends on the complexity of the mechanism, “the greater the complexity, the smaller the probability. Thus to determine whether something is sufficiently complex to warrant a design inference is to determine whether it has sufficiently small probability.”18 Complexity alone, however, does not necessarily indicate design. The result of 1,000 coin flips is complex but can be explained by randomness. This is why specification is also essential.

“Specification ensures that this object exhibits the type of pattern that is the trademark of intelligence.”19 Specificity alone does not necessarily indicate design. For example, redundant order, such as the earth’s orbiting the sun every 365 days, can be explained by law and necessity. If specification is combined with complexity, however, a design inference may be warranted. Dembski often cites an example from one area of science, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). In attempting to detect intelligence outside earth, SETI researchers have developed a filter with preset patterns so that it may discard radio waves that do not exhibit specified complexity. In Carl Sagan’s novel and film, Contact, SETI researchers detect extraterrestrial intelligence when they discover a sequence of beats and pauses that correspond to the prime numbers from 2 to 101.20

Dembski takes empirical data, such as biological complexity or the fine tuning of the universe, and uses his explanatory filter to help determine whether or not the phenomonen in question could be the result of natural processes. If not, he theorizes that it could be the result of an intelligent agent. Question: should science find out whether he is right or reject this theory out of hand?

I’m not going to defend his theory except to say that it seems reasonable that it could be tested with the available empirical evidence and future empirical evidence. Maybe Dembski is right, and maybe he is wrong. Maybe there are naturalistic explanations for things that we know believe come from an intelligent designer. But what does not seem reasonable, or scientific, is that we reject his theory a priori because it is not naturalistic. In other words, if our Creator has left imprints of design on the physical world that cannot be explained using natural processes, then why should science not attempt to find them? Why not follow the data where it takes you, instead of ruling out possible explanatory theories because they are not naturalistic?


Another example is the Creation Model offered by Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe. Ross has offered a model that proports to be a better fit for the available empirical data than naturalistic evolution. It appears that this theory is testable – in that the data from the fossil record and cosmology can be compared to the predictions of the model. The model will either be supported or rejected by the data, as the naturalistic evolutionary theory is tested now.

It seems reasonable to do this, but if we have to rule out supernatural causes (which his model proposes) then we have to rule out his creation model even if it fits the evidence far better than naturalistic evolution. I would argue that science is better served by testing his model and seeing whether its predictions actually come true. If not, his model should be rejected. If the evidence fits, we should look into his model further. But why should we a priori reject it?


Once again, Beckwith puts it well:

If one defines science as a discipline that allows only naturalistic explanations, and if one maintains that science is the only field that provides truth on the question of origins, then evolution (not necessarily Darwinism) must be true even if it leaves many unanswered questions. The real question, according to design theorists, is not whether ID conflicts with MN but whether their arguments for ID work. If ID arguments work, then MN is not a necessary precondition of natural science and cannot be employed to exclude positions contrary to it.

John had some other good points in the bottom half of his post that I’ll try to address in the future. I appreciate the opportunity to interact with such a clear Christian thinker.

Stem Cells and Law Professors

The New York Times had a relatively fair article describing the different types of stem cell research that are now being performed.

One idea, the focus of about half the nation's stem cell research, involves studying stem cells that are naturally present in adults. Researchers have found such cells in a variety of tissues and organs and say they seem to be a part of the body's normal repair mechanism. There are no ethical issues in studying these cells, but the problem is in putting them to work to treat diseases. So far, no one has succeeded.

The other line of research, with stem cells from embryos, has a different obstacle. Although, in theory, the cells could be coaxed into developing into any of the body's specialized cells, so far scientists are still working on ways to direct their growth in the laboratory and they have not yet effectively cured diseases, even in animals.

I would disagree in that adult stem cells have certainly shown great signs of effectiveness in treating human disease, but otherwise a pretty fair treatment.

I was interested in Dr. Diana Bianchi's work, who I previously posted about here. She has discovered that fetal stem cells remain in the mother after birth, and may have an effect on the healing capacity of the mother throughout her life:

But then she discovered that the fetal cells do not disappear when a pregnancy ends. Instead, they remain in a woman's body for decades, perhaps indefinitely. And if a woman's tissues or organs are injured, fetal cells from her baby migrate there, divide and turn into the needed cell type, be it thyroid or liver, intestine or gallbladder, cervix or spleen.

Very interesting stuff.

Hat Tip to Instapundit for the link. However, Glen also shows why law professors and judges should not be the ones to decide this issue, based on his comment:

Faster, please. And this is why I think that (1) Kerry's right to criticize the Bush funding limitation on embryonic stem cell research, even if he exaggerates its extent, and (2) why I don't buy the argument that adult stem cells will take care of everything. That's just not clear yet. And, since I don't believe that life begins at conception, the embryonic aspect doesn't bother me much either.

I have commented often on the scope and limitations of scientific inquiry. In this case, it is clear that science clearly reveals that a human embryo is an individual living organism of the species homo sapiens. Neuroscientist Maureen Condic explains this well in the Aug/Sept issue of First Things, pp 73-74:

Embryos manifestly behave as organisms and as nothing other than organisms from the single-cell stage onward. This conclusion is true today, will be true forever in the future, and will at no point be subject to substantial revision by further scientific research or discoveries.

Whether or not a human embryo is "human life" is a scientific question that has already been answered to the affirmative. It is a verifiable fact independent of anyone's beliefs. What science cannot tell us is how we should treat other individual organisms of our species. There may be reasons that someone can justify the intentional destruction of human life for the purposes of prolonging another human's life, but none are offered here. Simply asserting a belief that the human embryo does not qualify as human life is woefully inadequate.

Hadley Arkes states this far better than I can in an article in National Review

Of course, the argument arises over the question of just why the human embryo should be regarded as a human being, with the same human standing as those human beings we see all about us. If this were merely a matter of "belief," then for John Kerry the issue could be settled already. For he has already affirmed his belief — fortified, he claims, by his religion — that life begins at conception.

But happily there is a truth of this matter that does not hinge merely on "beliefs." What Kerry curiously affirms as a matter of mere personal belief happens to be the plain fact contained in every textbook on embryology and gynecology. Twenty years ago the Senate Committee on the Judiciary undertook a survey of the leading books in the field, and quite remarkably found a thorough consensus on the science of the matter. Twenty years later the consensus remains the same: Human life begins with the union of the male and female gametes to form a unique being, with a genetic definition quite separate from that of the mother and father. When we refer to the "human" embryo, we've already answered most of the question: The organism never undergoes a change in species. The offspring of homo sapiens is homo sapiens, or a human being, from its first moment to its last. And as the late Paul Ramsey once remarked so tellingly, there is nothing you and I have, genetically, that we did not have when we were that zygote, no larger than the period at the end of this sentence.

Thanks Joe!

Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost has laid claim that he has read me before I become the next Nancy Pearcey. I am humbled greatly by the compliment. This blog started out on a whim as I was checking out blogger one evening on my laptop in front of the tube. To have a blogger like Joe, whom I read every day, compare me to someone who writes as well as Nancy is a great encouragement. This is all despite the fact that to really be like Nancy would necessitate some serious and painful surgery that my wife would no doubt strongly object to.

Here is a great article by Ms. Pearcey incorporating Darwinism and bioethics:

Darwin's theory was never actually confirmed in nature. Even in laboratory experiments, scientists were unable to cross Burbank's "more or less fixed limitations." The fossil record shows the same pattern of discontinuous groupings back to the beginning of life. But genetic technology gave scientists the artificial means to create a Darwinian world of fuzzy edges and blurred boundaries.

And when the boundaries of humanity had become plastic and malleable, who could say humans had any special moral status? Even non-Christians saw the force of the argument: Embryologist Brian Goodwin wrote that Darwinism eliminates the idea of species as natural kinds, with disastrous ethical consequences: "Human nature disappears as a concept from neo-Darwinism, and so life becomes a set of parts, commodities that can be shifted around."

How to Integrate Faith and Science

Who says faith and science don't mix (emphasis mine):

They call it the God particle: a mysterious sub-atomic fragment that permeates the entire universe and explains how everything is the way it is. Nobody has ever seen the God particle; some say it doesn't exist but, in the ultimate leap of faith, physicists across the world are preparing to build one of the most ambitious and expensive science experiments the world has ever seen to try to find it.

I guess faith is fine as long as you 1) promise to find a naturalistic explanation that would decrease the need for God, 2) give your theorized particles a divine name and 3) need to petition governments for 3 billion dollars for an experiment that may not result in anything.

Hat tip: Incite

Does God Get Smaller When We Fill in the Gaps?

I’ve been spending the last few days studying the views of Denis Lamoureux, who is a theistic evolutionist at the University of Alberta. It seems that Dr. Lamoureux has a similar background to your humble author: originally trained as a dentist with an interest in theology. I’m also interested in Dr. Lamoureaux’s work in “dental development and evolution”, but a medline search and a comment on the Panda’s Thumb have not been helpful in locating his work in this area. I may attempt to contact him personally, and plan on buying and reviewing his book.

I’d like to respond to a point in this article by Dr. Lamoureux regarding the “God of the Gaps” argument.

"I think design is a powerful argument for theism," said Lamoureux, but he said the anti-evolutionists are wrong to insist that design could not have come about through evolution. Johnson is essentially promoting a 'God of the gaps' theory, declared Lamoureux, but he said that approach is dangerous because, as the gaps in our knowledge get smaller, so does God.

First of all, let’s define the God of the Gaps (GOTG) theory. In this theory, when we reach a position in our scientific research, we merely declare that “God did it”. The gaps in our scientific knowledge are just filled in by God, so there is no reason to continue such scientific investigation.

For example, let’s say that we theorize that leaves are green because God likes green and made them that way. Since God did it, and we can’t have the same knowledge that God has, there is no reason to try to find out why leaves are green. The structure of chlorophyll and the amazing ability to harness solar energy in the process of photosynthesis would never be discovered, because we previously posited that the knowledge gap was already filled by God, and further scientific inquiry is needless.

Lamoureux’s claim is that there is great danger in this argument because as our scientific knowledge increases, our need for God decreases. As we become smarter scientifically, we have less and less use for a transcendent being, thus God becomes smaller. If you believe that there is evidence of God when we lack naturalistic explanations for phenomena, this evidence will disappear when the gaps in our empirical knowledge disappear.

There are quite a few responses to this argument, but I will focus on a few. Is it true that when we “fill in the knowledge gap” with empirical knowledge that the evidence for God decreases? I believe this is false. In fact, I believe the opposite is the case. Using the example above, it is true that we have filled in the knowledge gap regarding why leaves are green. We now have excellent knowledge regarding the process of photosynthesis, but has that knowledge decreased the evidence for God? Not at all – in fact, as Behe has pointed out in Darwin’s Black Box, the knowledge that we have gained in empirical science has increased the evidence of design. When we have discovered the complexities of biochemical interactions, I believe it has only magnified the beauty of creation, and the character of the Creator.

Another example may be the investigation of blood. Early humans posited that “life is in the blood”; that God must have made this wonderful fluid that we are all dependent on. Now, because of science, we know the individual components of blood. Hemoglobin, clotting factors, stem cells, immune complexes, and complex proteins with many functions are known to be “in the blood”. Has this knowledge decreased the evidence of design? Once again, the opposite is the case. The complexity of the molecules and the amazing mechanisms that keep us alive have pointed to design, not the opposite.

Many assert that the gaps of knowledge get filled in when we make scientific discoveries, thus resulting in a lower number of knowledge gaps. I believe that every time a knowledge gap is filled, it results in other questions, which result in a greater, not lesser number of problems that need to be investigated scientifically.

Lastly, Lamoureux has a great optimism regarding the capacity of science to give us the answers we seek. This is a modernist notion, and one that I believe is unrealistic in its implementation. I know that I’ve already quoted this piece by Richard Lewontin, but he agrees with me on this point:

The concentration on the genes implicated in cancer is only a special case of a general genomania that surfaces in the form of weekly announcements in The New York Times of the location of yet another gene for another disease. The revealing rhetoric of this publicity is always the same; only the blanks need to be filled in: "It was announced today by scientists at [Harvard, Vanderbilt, Stanford] Medical School that a gene responsible for [some, many, a common form of] [schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, arterio-sclerosis, prostate cancer] has beenlocated and its DNA sequence determined. This exciting research, say scientists, is the first step in what may eventually turn out to be a possible cure for this disease."…

Biologists are not the only scientists who, having made extravagant claims about their merchandise, deliver the goods in bite-sized packages. Nor are they the only manufacturers of knowledge who cannot be bothered to pick up a return package when the product turns out to be faulty. Sagan's own branch of science is in the same business. Anxious to revive a failing public interest in spending large amounts on space research, NASA scientists, followed by the President of the United States, made an immense fuss about the discovery of some organic molecules on a Mars rock. There is (was) life (of some rudimentary kind) on Mars (maybe)! Can little green men in space machines be far behind? If it turns out, as already suggested by some scientists, that these molecules are earthly contaminants, or were produced in non-living chemical systems, this fact surely will not be announced at a White House press conference, or even above the fold in The New York Times.

I’m not saying that scientific knowledge has not advanced our lives. I’m glad I have Versed to sedate patients and antibiotics to give them when they get an infection. However, the idea that all of the gaps in our knowledge can be filled by science, or that we are actually getting to the point that our body of knowledge is getting closer to all of the answers is wrong. This "scientific" attitude is dangerous, and is as much of a "science stopper" than the GOTG theory is. The more knowledge we gain the more we should realize we lack. The body of our scientific knowledge is in no danger of pushing the Creator out of the picture.

The Evolution of Circular Reasoning

I’ve been doing some research on third molars the last few days, and some of the things I have found have been quite interesting. As I stated yesterday, macro-evolutionists have used the presence of third molars as evidence for the macro-evolutionary paradigm. I found this article from last year in the Journal of the American Dental Association entitled “The Unresolved Problem of the Third Molar: Would People Be Better Off Without It?” by ANTHONY R. SILVESTRI JR., D.M.D.; IQBAL SINGH, B.D.S, M.D.S., D.M.D. JADA is the leading peer-reviewed dental journal in the world. A subscription is required for the full article (so I will quote it at length), but here is the abstract:

Background. Third molars are teeth that have little functional value and a relatively high rate of associated pain and disease. Their value as part of the dentition of modern people is dubious.
Types of Studies Reviewed. The authors review the evolution, development, morbidity and treatment of third molars. They assess the value of third molars in the 21st century and describe the risks these teeth pose when they develop in the dentition.
Conclusions. There is a mandate for the dental profession to improve health outcomes and quality of life. The prevention of third molar–related morbidity should be included in dental research efforts. The authors suggest that novel preventive methodologies be developed to alleviate the problems third molars pose. One potential methodology suggested is intentional therapeutic agenesis of this tooth.
Clinical Implications. Prevention of third molar development early in life, even before tooth bud initiation, could dramatically improve health care outcomes for millions of people.

In describing the “evolution” of third molars, the authors describe the typical story of how teeth developed in our common ancestors:

The dependency on teeth for survival began to decrease several million years ago when hominids assumed an upright posture.3 Front appendages evolved to form arms and hands, which assisted in essential survival skills such as hunting, fighting and gathering food—tasks previously performed nearly exclusively by the teeth. Higher neural function evolved over the last million years or so, leading to the creation of powerful offensive and defensive hand-held weapons and tools, which further reduced the dependency on teeth for survival.

You get the drift. Teeth started to form as a protective mechanism, and over the last few million years, their need has decreased. Thus the fact that third molars have formed and are now impacted. This is standard macro-evolutionary story. Now lets look at the evidence that these docs give for the presence of third molars:

Speculation and work done by dentists, paleontologists and other investigators have helped explain the evolutionary changes observed in the size, shape and position of teeth in people from early hominids to modern humans…
These aberrations in third molar patterning may be related to the shortening of the jaws that occurred in people over time.9,10 However, the reasons these aberrations occur and the mechanisms that control them remain elusive.

Wow, after being so sure of the macro-evolutionary paradigm, they state that changes that have occurred in third molars are “speculation”. The reasons that these aberrations occur are “elusive”. It is important to remember that evolutionists have used third molars as evidence for macro-evolution. Later on in the article, they state:

Prehistoric people likely did not have the infections we associated today with impacted and partially impacted third molars.25 Although caries and periodontal disease were prevalent,26 evidence suggests that dental pathology was relatively low.27 The disintegration of the dentition in prehistoric people appears to have been primarily the result of extreme occlusal wear and its accompanying sequelae.28 Third molars, therefore, may have played a useful role in decreasing the rate of occlusal wear by increasing the surface area available for chewing.
Toward the end of the 17th century, people experienced a dramatic increase in the prevalence of dental disease, most likely a result of a dramatic shift in lifestyles and diets.25,29,30 From that time until the advent of modern dentistry at the beginning of the 20th century, there was a dramatic acceleration in the rate of dental disease associated not only with third molars but also with every other tooth. Today, despite advances in preventive dentistry, the location of third molars in the dental arches often makes them difficult to care for, and their frequent impaction exposes patients to degenerative conditions infrequently associated with any other tooth type.

Here’s the payoff. I hope I can make this clear. They state that prehistoric people did not have the infections we have had today, and that third molars may have had a useful role. In fact, it was not until the 17th century that the acceleration in dental disease occurred. In other words – human beings may have benefited by the presence of third molars early in our history, and it has only been a relatively recent change in our jaw/tooth size that has resulted in impacted third molar teeth. It seems like he is laying out a strong case for microevolution – which is not under question. They simply assume that macro-evolution is the correct mechanism, not realizing that the evidence they have offered does nothing to support the macro-evolutionary paradigm.

The reasoning is entirely circular here. The macro-evolutionist literature uses the presence of impacted third molars as evidence for macro-evolution. Meanwhile, the dental anthropology literature states repeatedly (I can give more examples) that the mechanism for the presence of impacted third molars is unknown, but they assume macro-evolution because, well... the evolutionists say so. In fact, I believe it is quite likely that the presence of impacted third molars in the human dentition today is evidence for micro-evolution, and that the major changes that have taken place in our anatomy stem from the dramatic change in our diets that have occurred in the last 300-500 years.

Another example is seen here. This oral surgeon believes that wisdom teeth resulted from macro-evolution, but actually gives evidence for micro-evolution:

Like the first and second molars, wisdom teeth evolved in early humans to grind food to a texture that made it safe to swallow. The three molars created a large, effective chewing table that suited the diet and lifestyle of 20,000 BC.
Our Neanderthal ancestors had very little brain space and a large, powerful jaw. Over tens of thousands of years, the cranial proportions changed. The growing human brain needed more space, so the brain cavity expanded while the jaws diminished accordingly. But in all this time, the number of teeth in the normal human jaw has remained the same: 32.

Neandertals disappeared 35,000 years ago, so the fact that three molars helped us 20,000 years ago is once again micro-evolution.

Rusty from New Covenant commented that evolutionsists suffer from “evolutionary lensing”, in that they automatically see evidence through a macro-evolutionary lens. This is clear in reviewing the literature on this obscure subject.

I am a fair critic, so in the future I’ll be taking a look at what some creationists have stated about third molar teeth. I believe it is a good example on how not to use evidence that calls into the question the macro-evolutionary paradigm.

Olympic Viewing

My ReplayTV has been absolutely essential in watching the Olympics this year. I'm able to record 12 hours a day and then instantly fast forward past the boring stuff. I end up watching about 2 hours a night of nothing but the sports I like. I would rather have my DVR than a 50 inch plasma screen if I had to watch the commercials.

Of course, when the kids go to bed and the wife wants to watch the Olympics with me, I don't mind sitting through women's gymnastics. This post has a different point of view. Its hilarious.

Are Wisdom Teeth Evidence for Macro-Evolution?

As an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, I spend at least half of my time in the office extracting third molar teeth (wisdom teeth). It has always been interesting to me that the presence of third molars is often cited as evidence for macroevolution. It is true that the lower jaws of human beings are often too small too allow their 3rd molar teeth to erupt, thus necessitating their extraction (and my means of income). Does this fact support the idea of macroevolution and common descent?

First, we have to define some terms. The term evolution simply means change over time. If someone asks me if I believe in evolution my question is yes – lots of things evolve. In fact, my theology has changed over time. Of course, they then ask if I believe in biological evolution. Once again, my answer is yes – organisms do change over time. In fact, selective breeding shows the effect of sexual reproduction and natural selection. This is a process called micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is change within a species to adapt to an organism’s environment. I believe this occurs all of the time.

What I am unconvinced of is the concept of macro-evolution, the idea that using the process of random mutation and natural selection, more complex organisms have arose from less complex organisms due only via natural processes. The macro-evolutionist asserts that the same process that has allowed us to selectively different breeds of dogs, simple species have evolved into more complex species. What evolutionists often do is to show evidence of change within a species (micro-evolution), and assert that it must have occurred across species (macro-evolution). This is a huge leap of faith. Hugh Ross calls this the shell game of evolution, and we should watch out for it. Evidence of micro-evolution does not necessarily support macro-evolution. With all of the selective breeding of dogs that we do there is one in common to each of them; they are still dogs.

Here’s a classic example. This is a faq entitled “29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent” by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D. It is available here on the talk.origins archive. Dr. Theobald specifically claims he is not talking about micro-evolution:

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

We should not expect the shell game from him. However, in part 2.1 (under Anatomical Vestiges), Theobald refers to third molars in his “confirmation” section. This is what he states:

The ancestors of humans are known to have been herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as wisdom teeth). Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one third of all individuals they are malformed and impacted (Hattab et al. 1995; Schersten et al. 1989). These useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death (Litonjua 1996; Obiechina et al. 2001; Rakprasitkul 2001; Tevepaugh and Dodson 1995).

There are a few factual issues here:
1. Molars are present in both herbivores and carnivores. The fact that herbivores have teeth that appear to have a sort of mortar and pestle design does not mean that the teeth in carnivores evolved from those in herbivores.
2. The definition of an impacted tooth is one that “does not erupt from the gums”. The most recent data shows that 65% of patients will have one or more impacted third molars by the time they are 20 years of age.
3. Don’t be impressed by the citations listed. They only provide support for his claim that wisdom teeth are often impacted and can cause significant problems. One afternoon in my office would give you the same information.

More importantly, do you see what is missing?

What is missing is any shred of data that supports the idea that impacted third molars are the result of a macro-evolutionary process. Even if you accept the idea that third molars are vestigial organs (which I would argue against), he has offered no evidence that would distinguish impacted third molars via a micro-evolutionary process from a macro-evolutionary process. Remember he has offered this as “confirmation” of macroevolution, and as one of his 29 evidences for macroevolution. It is nothing of the sort.

The smaller lower jaws in human beings could very well be the result of a micro-evolutionary process due to the fact that our diets have changed significantly in the last 300-500 years. In fact, I will argue that is the case in future posts. This impressive looking “evidences for macroevolution” is nothing of the sort when it comes to impacted third molars.

Is Stand to Reason Guilty of Hate?

Stand to Reason is a Christian Apologetics ministry that has deepened my understanding of my Christian faith in ways that words can't express. I had the opportunity of meeting Greg Koukl and Steve Wagner when I was at Biola and I consider Greg one of the clearest thinkers about today's cultural issues. I am very humbled at receiving this honor by the Dawn Treader. This is why I was amazed by this article in World Net Daily, in which Google has pulled an STR ad from their search engine because of their supposed hate speech. Not surprisingly, Melinda Penner of STR replies with a well thought out logical rebuttal. Here is an excerpt:

An e-mail Penner received from "Kristie" at Google used the "H" word, saying, "Google AdWords policy never permits ads or keywords promoting hate, violence, or crimes toward any organization, person or group protected by law," including those distinguished by their "sexual orientation/gender identity."

Penner countered via e-mail: "Your suspension of our advertisement illegitimately excludes one side of the [same-sex marriage] debate. If you deem the issue itself off limits, then consistency would require you to suspend all searches of the issue. Instead, your search criteria return links to sites strongly advocating same-sex marriage. …"

Any review of STR's material regarding homosexuality here will show that besides claiming that homosexuality is morally wrong, there is no "hate" involved. I would challenge anyone to quote something from those articles that should be considered hate.

I believe heterosexual sex outside of marriage is morally wrong. Am I also guilty of hate speech? Why should only homosexuals be the only ones protected from moral judgments regarding their sexual activity?

Ironically, I'm sure Google would defend its view by claiming that Koukl's views are intolerant. Greg has written on this very issue, pointing out that it is not intolerant to disagree with a moral stance on a particular issue. It is intolerant to use false idea of tolerance to quash a dissenting point of view.

Hat Tip: F. Beckwith at Moteworthy

Tidy Engineer or Creative Artist?

Back of the Envelope and Prosthesis did a great job expanding the theological problems with the "bad design" arguments that naturalists often assert. However, there is another aspect of these arguments that is often overlooked. Must our Creator be an engineer whose only concern is optimizing mechanical efficiency or is it possible that the Creator has shown artistic and creative characteristics in the design of living organisms?
The Naturalist's argument is based on the assertion that if God exists, and if he designed biological organisms, he would have designed them (and us) in ways in which optimized all aspects of our physical bodies. That would be his main and most important consideration. If there exists characteristics in biologic organisms that are consistent with sub-optimal design, that would indicate that God did not do the designing.

A problem with this argument is that is completely ignores the fact that optimal design may not be the goal of a creative designer. We see that constantly in human design. The design of the VW bug is very sub-optimal. It sacrifices certain things (like passenger room) for esthetics, and was very popular. Human beings actually freely choose to purchase a car because of its beauty and "cuteness" (a term used by a staff member of mine who drives one) than by its optimal engineering efficiency.

Why shouldn't a benevolent, transcendent designer choose to sacrifice some design characteristics to increase the beauty of his design? Where is the room for creativity? Why should we believe that we know his mind enough to know how he should design us?

This reminds me of a portion of the movie Amadeus, where the emperor applies his naive criticism of one of Mozart's marvelous compositions:

Emperor Joseph II: Your work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

The Naturalists believe that we are wonderfully made through randomness, with just a few sub-optimal bad design characteristics that confirms that there was no designer involved. Like Emperor Joseph, they naively believe they have the capacity to question the beauty of the creation. If anything is based on bad design, it is this argument.

A View From Germany

It seems clear that Kerry is attempting to use embryonic stem cell research as an issue he can make political hay with. He has painted Bush as an ideologue that opposes science for ideological and political reasons. Kerry has used misleading statements to support his view, including wrongly stating that Bush has "banned" embryonic stem research (which he hasn't). The DNC also used Ron Reagan to use all of his scientific expertise to give a speech during their convention. During Ron's speech, he alluded to human cloning without ever mentioning the words. Kerry has also intimated that the U.S. is in danger of falling woefully behind the rest of the world in regards to this research.

I believe it is instructive to look at another country and their struggles with this issue: Germany. It may surprise some that Germany actually has a far more restrictive policy on embryonic stem cell research than does the U.S. According to the Stem Cell Act, it is illegal for anyone to create human stem cells in that country, and research may only be done on imported stem cells under strict criteria:

The German Stem Cell Act bans in principle the import and use of human ES cells, the production of which is outlawed in Germany. However, import of human ES cells and research projects using human ES cells will be permitted when the following conditions are fulfilled:

alternative forms of research have been exhausted;

only stem cell lines created before 1 January 2002 are used which have come from surplus embryos created for reproduction and which were not used for reasons other than research;

the aims of the research are worthy and of benefit for society at large

applications have been assessed by a high level ethics committee; and

there is a licensing authority to administer the system.

For this reason, very few scientists have even applied to use the imported stem cells.

Why does Germany have these restrictions? Clearly it is not a right-wing political issue; the present German government is very left of center and was elected in no small part because of their opposition to the Bush administration. It would be difficult to claim that germany is backward technologically. So why do they have such harsh restrictions on this "miraculous" research?

In few countries has the soul-searching over the promises and pitfalls of biotechnology been as intense as in Germany, in part because of the Nazis' grisly legacy of experimentation in eugenics.

I believe it is because the german people remember the last time their culture allowed organisms of our species to be experimented on without their consent. The German's past attempt at eugenics and medical experimentation on live human beings make them especially hesitant to walk down that road again. The Germans used to call the humans that they experimented on Lebensunwertes Leben, or life unworthy of life.

It is extrordinarily ironic that the country that now provides the embryonic stem cells, and that hails itself as a center of embryonic stem cell research, is Israel. It also needs to be stated that Germany is in many ways leading the field in adult stem cell technology, which I believe has far greater potential to actually provide human cures.

At least on this issue, Germany actually follows article 1 of their Basic Law:

1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.

I hope we can learn from their past as they have.

What is Science?

Von from Obsidian Wings had the following comment regarding Lewontin’s a priori commitment to materialism:

By definition, when one is practicing science, one must have "an a priori commitment to" materialism. (Roughly, "an a priori commitment to" materialism = a posteriori reasoning.) If one does not have "an a priori commitment to" materialism, one is not practicing science. Period. This is because science, like every form of a posteriori reasoning, can only tell us about the material world.

By arguing that evolution is flawed because it requires "an a priori commitment to" materialism, while ID does not, you are implicitly conceding that ID is not science. Because, if ID truly were science, it, too, would require an "an a priori commitment to" materialism. This particular argument in favor of ID proves too much.

First of all, I believe Von is misunderstanding Lewontin’s stance. Lewontin is not merely claiming that materialism is the method in which science must be conducted, but the only means of knowledge that is available to anyone. He makes this clear here:

Second, to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out. People believe a lot of nonsense about the world of phenomena, nonsense that is a consequence of a wrong way of thinking. The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of, for that vast project is, in its entirety, hopeless. Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth. (emphasis mine)

His materialism is not a scientific theory, but a metaphysical one. He claims that science is the “only begetter of truth”. Of course, I would ask him which scientific experiment he used to confirm that. He won’t be able to answer, because his statement is self refuting. He states that truth only comes from science, but posits a metaphysical statement that we are to believe is true.

However, even IF Lewontin was attempting to make the point that one must conduct science in a way that is committed to materialism, I still believe he is wrong. This view is similar to that expressed by Scott T. Todd, who wrote a letter to the journal Nature (9/30/99, p423), stating:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism. (emphasis mine)

I believe the problems with such a view are clear. I ask the question “What is the goal of science?” Is the goal of science to or to discover the truth, or merely come up with the best naturalistic explanation for complex phenomena? Should we follow the data wherever it takes us, or should we a priori limit ourselves to materialistic conclusions?

How about the question: Do pure material mechanisms (like natural selection and random variation) have the creative capacity to bring about the full complexity and diversity of living forms? According to Von’s viewpoint, the answer is yes by definition. In other words, the conclusion is proven prior to any a posteriori evidence. In fact, if any evidence appears to contradict the already committed to conclusion, it must be excluded immediately(per Todd).

Is that really science? Do we have to skip over data points that don’t support a materialistic conclusion? Is it right to have conclusion before any evidence is in? Nope – this is not science – it is metaphysics masquerading as science.

A response may be that science does not have the capability to investigate whether or not there are characteristics of design. This is simply untrue. Leaving aside Dembski’s explanatory filter and empirical detectability of design, we use design characteristics in science commonly. Two common examples are CSIs, which routinely attempt to see if the evidence supports the idea that someone died of natural causes or whether there was an intelligent agent who acted. Another one is the SETI project, which analyzes space noise to find patterns that would be indicative of an intelligent agent (of the little green type). We even do it individually. If someone saw the words HELP ME written on a car’s windshield, chances are they would stop and try to see whether or not someone was in danger. However, if the same six letters show up in that order when you are drawing your letters for Scrabble, you would not conclude that there was someone stuck inside the box needing your help. In your analysis of the data in both instances, you can use a posteriori experience to help you come up with a conclusion whether an intelligent agent was the cause of the letters or not.

Also, there is a concern that not having a commitment to materialism, we would open the door to a “God of the Gaps”, which would stop scientific investigation. Every time we come to a hard problem, we would simply stop investigating and say that “it must be God.”

I believe this is also untrue. First of all, right now, all we have accomplished with this is replacing “God of the Gaps” with “Naturalism of the Gaps”. I do not see why this is necessarily better. Just as it is wrong to insert God when a knowledge gap exists, it is wrong to assume that a naturalistic explanation for a gap in our knowledge exists when the data isn’t present. When a scientist already believes he knows the answer to a question, even though he has very little evidence to support it, science suffers. On the other hand, if ID theory has done anything, it has encouraged scientists to dig a little deeper to come up with evidence to support a theory that they’ve been asserting as the truth.

I for one am confident that the truth will win out. If life did evolve from purely unintelligent naturalistic processes, the arguments of ID will be refuted and macro-evolution will be supported. However, there no reason to a priori reject evidence (gained a posteriori) that casts doubt on the mechanisms that have been proposed by the macro-evolution paradigm. That is NOT science.

Enforcing the Law

An excellent post by Joe Carter regarding Bush's executive order to only allow government funding on existing stem cell lines. I must admit that I knew about the Dickie Amendment and forgot that Bush's order was merely an enforcement of existing law. The "loophole" that Clinton found was that if the government itself did not kill the embryos in question, but allowed an outside agency to kill the embryos, the cells could be used for research. In other words, we could use the embryonic stem cells as long as they were killed by a hired gun, instead of us doing it ourselves. Interesting logic to say the least.

I also want to call attention to this letter signed by 2000 doctors and supporting evidence from the Christian Medical and Dental Association urging Congress to support adult stem cell research as having greater potential for actual cures. For full disclosure: I am a member of that fine organization.

A Priori Commitment = No Level Playing Field

I appreciate this response by Wesley L. Elsberry from the Panda’s Thumb from this post of mine regarding Francis Crick’s views on directed panspermia. Dr. Elsberry is the Information Project Director for the National Center for Science Education. As someone who is active is many of today’s bioethics debates, I thought folks were passionate about those issues. Looking over the comments that the readers of the Panda’s Thumb made, I realize that the macro-evolutionism crowd is even more on edge. A few responses to the other’s comments before I respond to Dr. Elsberry’s comments:

JonMo: Surely “directed panspermia” is not an ID theory. It is a theory that evolution may have proceeded from a basis that didn’t itself begin here

Directed panspermia is Intelligent Design. Here are Crick’s own words from the abstract in Icarus:

"As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet."

Replacing a transcendent God with little green men does not change the meaning of the word intelligent.

Nick: Another ID blog claim down in flames. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes…

I have blogged about ID three times this week, which makes my total posts on ID…ah… 3. To call this an ID blog is a serious misreading of the evidence. I suppose your confidence is something that can be admired but your analysis of the data leaves something to be desired.

Frank J: Alas, not when ~50% of the audience swears by astrology and ~90% cannot describe a molecule.

Cute Frank. You enlightened science types are so much smarter than the rest of the masses. How dare we question you!

Now on to Dr. Elsberry:

Francis Crick labeled his “directed panspermia” conjectures as just that: speculation. ID advocates try to assert that their conjectures are established science

What do you mean by “established science”? I always thought the goal in scientific exploration is to discover the truth, not necessarily to become part of the scientific establishment. If the scientific establishment is wrong, especially when their conclusions are based a priori in a metaphysical “commitment to materialism” as Richard Lewontin stated (see post here), then being one of the established in not a worthy goal. You are well aware that argumentum ad populum is still a logical fallacy especially in science.

Francis Crick never held a congressional briefing, nor lobbied a state legislature, nor inveigled a school board, to insist that “directed panspermia” be taught to K12 students as science. ID advocates are using a socio-political full-court press to skip over all the tedious work of convincing the scientific community that they have a clue.

In my post I did not mention any ID proponents in particular. Are you saying that every future proponent of any ID theory should not be given a fair hearing because of the actions of the present ID community?

Third, “supporting evidence” assumes that one has proposed a positive theory of one’s own and (here’s the tough part) performed some empirical tests upon it that actually might have told you the theory could be wrong.

Your colleague Eugenie Scott, on your organization’s website seems to think that there is at least some testable element of ID:

Similarly, ID can make empirically or logically or statistically testable claims (certain structures are irreducibly complex; by using probability arguments like the “design filter” one can detect design) but the foundational claim that a supernatural “intelligence” is behind it all is not a scientifically testable statement.

If the argument is that ID had not come up with a testable model that accounts for all the known data, a similar point was made by Behe in that the macro-evolutionary paradigm has not come up with testable models to account for the generation of irreducibly complex biochemical machines via natural selection.

There does exist a level playing field. The scientific community communicates via the peer-reviewed literature, establishing an iterative process of inter-subjective criticism and review that finds what works in scientific ideas. This playing field, though, has been shunned by ID advocates.

How so given Lewontin’s comment:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. (emphasis mine)

Look at the Times article on Crick (that was the main focus of my post). Crick’s speculation is seen as an “escape hatch”. In other words, he provides a way for scientists to maintain their materialistic worldview even “should scientists in fact find it too hard to account plausibly for the remarkably rapid emergence of earth's first life forms”. Even if the data makes it “too hard” for scientists to come up with a plausible explanation, they can maintain their materialism (see Lewontin.) Under this a priori commitment to materialism, a stance not scientific but metaphysical, a level playing field will not exist.

The Perils of "Bad Design"

Arguments from “Bad Design” are frequent in macro-evolutionary circles. Steven Jay Gould described these arguments in his book The Panda’s Thumb this way:

But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution-paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. (pp20-21)

Here is an extensive list of “bad designs” that talk.origins have compiled.
There are a number of these that can be challenged (the “wisdom tooth” bad design argument will be decimated in a future post). But there are a number of fundamental problems with arguments from bad design.

1. Arguments from bad design are not scientific arguments, but theological ones. Gould never explains why he knows how a “sensible God” would tread if one did exist, which he denies.

2. How does Gould wish to scientifically verify the terms “odd arrangements” and “funny solutions”. Does he have some form of repeatable experiment to prove “funnyness”? How does he wish to show that the “oddness” of certain biological organisms equals “bad” design? It is these terms that Gould grounds his "proof" of evolution.

3. The argument presupposes that if God exists, he would create us with a perfect design. However, there is no reason to assume, especially in Christianity, that God had an obligation to create us in a way that was perfectly designed.

Even with these responses I believe it is instructive to look at another aspect of bad design – the idea that we have the ability not only to detect "bad design", but to improve on it. It is one thing to look at a design and call it “bad”, it is another to come up with a better design. This is an attitude which is not only arrogant, but as I will show, can be downright dangerous.

I will use an example in surgery that I am very familiar with – the Proplast TMJ Implant. It is one of the saddest episodes in my profession. Let me provide some background.

The human temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is a complex joint consisting of the condyle of the mandible (lower jaw) and the articular fossa of the skull base. (Here's a decent picture) In between the two there is a fibrous disk that protects the bones and allows for both rotational and translational movement of the joint.

Temporomandibular joint disfunction (called TMD by professionals, although many lay people refer to this condition as “TMJ”) occurs when there is a problem with the function of the TMJ, usually resulting in severe pain, clicking, and an inability to fully open the jaw (among others). The main anatomic problem that results in TMD is that the fibrous disk is displaced forward (anteriorly), resulting in many of the symptoms reported.

Clearly this is “bad design”. Having a disk that is supposed to move freely get “stuck” and thus not do its job is a design flaw. The solution: replace the joint with one with “better” design. Instead of a disk that can get stuck, they tried to replace it with space-age materials that would result in better TMJ movement with no pain. They used modified Teflon, and marketed the joint replacement as the Proplast TMJ Implant. About 26,000 of these implants were placed in patients, tragically some of them with only minor symptoms.

Oops.

Although most of the implants functioned well immediately after surgery, there were significant problems on the horizon. It turns out that the forces involved in the TMJ were far greater than what was initially thought, and the implants quickly wore down under those conditions. Even worse, the wear of the implants produced small granules of Teflon, which initiated an immune response, called a giant cell response (named after the name of the cell most responsible for the immune response).

Although giant cells do a pretty good job of cleaning up messes, they have an unfortunate side effect – they tend to be pretty indiscriminate with what they destroy. As a result, these unfortunate patients had a great deal of bony destruction around the joint. In the worst cases the immune response actually destroyed the area by the base of the skull, resulting in tumors in the cranial cavity itself. Many patients had benign brain tumors removed because of the placement of these Proplast Implants. (Individual stories can be found here, here, and here.)

The blame for this fiasco is far-reaching, but I believe one of the greatest causes was the attitude of surgeons that the TMJ suffered from “bad design” and that we could improve it with a “better” design with these implants. As a result, these implants were sometimes placed in patients with minor symptoms (after all, why limit who could benefit from the “better design” to those who have the worst symptoms).

Sometimes what seems like bad design is far better than what we can come up with.

The Aliens Did It!

Let's imagine that a prominent evangelical Christian stated that he had come up with the correct answer for the origin of life on earth. His answer: an intelligent being intentionally spread the building blocks of life by placing DNA molecules into small "spore" like particles and distributed them throughout the universe. When these particles happened to fall on a hospitable place like earth, life would evolve there.

Then, when realizing that their hypothesis would still be quite unbelievable, they modify it to state that the particles were actually miniature spaceships with "genetic starter kits". These kits provided not only the early primitive organisms but the nutrients needed for their journey across the skies to our humble planet.

Certainly the Christian "scientist" would be ridiculed mercilessly. Naturalists would decry the attempt to mix religion and science. The fact that there is really no scientific evidence to support such a theory would be paraded everywhere. You would assume that since this is a scientific claim, and science is a purely objective enterprise, these criticisms of such a ridiculous theory would be the same regardless of who made the claims.

Of course, you would be wrong. The theory intimated above is actually Directed Panspermia, and was offered by none other than Francis Crick, the codiscoverer of DNA. Dr. Crick died last week, and it is interesting to see how the "scientists" handle his advocacy of Directed Panspermia. What is even more interesting is that Directed Panspermia is actually a form of intelligent design theory. It is an acknowledgement that the time required for the generation of life spontaneously on earth is not adequate.

So, you probably think the critics lambasted him for his intelligent design theory. Surely the science section of the New York Times had some scathing critique. Well, here it is:

Another diversion that Dr. Crick allowed himself was a bold speculation about the origin of life. Only the most eminent and secure of scientists would dare flirt with the idea that earth may have been seeded with life by a rocket ship from another planet. But that possibility, a thesis Dr. Crick termed "Directed Panspermia," was aired in an article he published in the journal Icarus (1973) with his Salk Institute colleague Leslie E. Orgel and in a popular book by Dr. Crick alone, "Life Itself" (1981).

Dr. Crick in no way rejected the orthodox scientific thesis that life evolved in some way, yet to be specified, from the chemicals present on the early earth. But he was impressed by the unexplained universality of the genetic code and uncomfortable with the narrow window of time between the date the earth cooled enough to be habitable and the first appearance of life in the fossil record. With "Directed Panspermia," he prepared, in effect, an intellectual escape hatch, an alternative explanation for life should scientists in fact find it too hard to account plausibly for the remarkably rapid emergence of earth's first life forms.

So Crick's intelligent design theory is "bold speculation". Instead of relying on the data, he proposes an "intellectual escape hatch" in case the data does not support the evolutionary theory.

At least our friends at The Panda's Thumb, who show so much disdain for intelligent design theorists, would provide a tough critique of Crick's intelligent design theory. Remember that science is supposedly about evaluating the data, not making ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with your view. Here are their comments regarding Crick, with very little mention (and no critique of) his ID theory.

If you are a Christian and propose an ID theory with supporting evidence, you are lambasted as a simple-minded, non-scientific science killer. If you are a Nobel prize winner and you propose an ID theory with no evidence, you are applauded by your "bold speculation". Who still believes that this is a level playing field?

Update: Apologies to Jeff at The Dawn Treader. I forgot to mention that I remembered Crick's Panspermia after reading his excellent posts regarding Crick's worldview here and here. Chalk it up to posting in between patients on a busy Friday afternoon.

W and Kerry Flip-Flops

My wife and I had the pleasure of seeing President Bush during his campaign stop in Michigan yesterday. It was my first time seeing a sitting president give a speech, and the experience was pretty incredible.

I believe this documentary is a devastating one for Kerry. It shows all of his positions on Iraq and when he held them with video clips juxtaposed on the dates that he said them. At first I thought the "flip-flop" charge was merely political posturing from the Republicans. This video shows how much teeth that charge really has.

"We Have a Prior Commitment, a Commitment to Materialism"

Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost has had a series of posts about intelligent design. Today, this post describes the scientific consensus that human beings, as well as other organisms, evolved from a common ancestor. He quoted evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin, who asserted in 1981 that this question had already been answered by science:

It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. (Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981))

This quote caught my attention because of something else Lewontin wrote later in his career. In his review of Carl Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World" in the NY Review of Books, January 9, 1997, Lewontin wrote this amazing confession:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. (emphasis in orginal)

It is hard to overstate the impact of this statement. Lewontin acknowledges that his scientific conclusions were not the result of an objective eveluation of the data, but an a priori commitment to the philosophy of materialism. In other words, even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, and a materialist conclusion is completely counter-intutitive, he would still come up with a materialist conclusion. He already has his conclusion, now he just has to look around and find evidence for it. This is the "science" that we are told to trust.

It makes you wonder how many scientific conclusions are based on the presuppositions of the one doing the investigation. All too often the public immediately trusts anyone who wears a white labcoat. This trust is often misplaced. At least Lewontin is honest about it.

What is Brain Death?

Donald Crankshaw at Back of the Envelope responded to yesterday's post regarding organ transplantation (thanks Donald). He made this comment:

A more immediate question from Serge's post, is his assertion that brain death is a legal fiction. This is not something I know a lot about, and I always assumed that when people talked about brain death, they were talking about a real, permanent cessation of all higher brain functions. But then, I'm not a medical doctor, while Serge is, and I'd like to hear what he means by this.

I did not make that clear at all so I will try to clarify.

Many assert in the abortion debate that the "real" life of a human being does not begin until the brain begins to function. The most common reason for this assertion is that since a human being is considered dead once his brain stops functioning, a human being must not be "alive" until his brain begins to function. There are a number of reasons why this argument fails, which I can into in future posts. A great rebuttal of this argument is given here by Maureen Condic. She also gives an excellent description of brain death, so I will quote her at length:

Brain death occurs when there has been irreversible damage to the brain, resulting in a complete and permanent failure of brain function. Following the death of the brain, the person stops thinking, sensing, moving, breathing, or performing any other function, although many of the cells in the brain remain “alive” following loss of brain function. The heart can continue to beat spontaneously for some time following death of the brain (even hearts that have been entirely removed from the body will continue to beat for a surprisingly long period), but eventually the heart ceases to function due to loss of oxygen. The advantage of brain death as a legal and medical definition for the end of life is that the quality of organs for transplant can be maintained by maintaining artificial respiration. So long as oxygen is artificially supplied, the heart will continue to beat and the other organs of the body will be maintained in the same state they were prior to death of the brain.

Defining death as the irreversible loss of brain function remains for some a controversial decision. The fact that the cells and organs of the body can be maintained after the death of the individual is a disturbing concept. The feeling that corpses are being kept artificially “alive” as medical zombies for the convenient culture of transplantable organs can be quite discomforting, especially when the body in question is that of a loved one. Nonetheless, it is important to realize that this state of affairs is essentially no different from what occurs naturally following death by any means. On a cellular and molecular level, nothing changes in the instant of death. Immediately following death, most of the cells in the body are still alive, and for a time at least, they continue to function normally. Maintaining heartbeat and artificial respiration simply extends this period of time. Once the “plug is pulled,” and the corpse is left to its own devices, the cells and organs of the body undergo the same slow death by oxygen deprivation they would have experienced had medical science not intervened.

What has been lost at death is not merely the activity of the brain or the heart, but more importantly the ability of the body’s parts (organs and cells) to function together as an integrated whole. Failure of a critical organ results in the breakdown of the body’s overall coordinated activity, despite the continued normal function (or “life”) of other organs. Although cells of the brain are still alive following brain death, they cease to work together in a coordinated manner to function as a brain should. Because the brain is not directing the lungs to contract, the heart is deprived of oxygen and stops beating. Subsequently, all of the organs that are dependent on the heart for blood flow cease to function as well. The order of events can vary considerably (the heart can cease to function, resulting in death of the brain, for example), but the net effect is the same. Death occurs when the body ceases to act in a coordinated manner to support the continued healthy function of all bodily organs. Cellular life may continue for some time following the loss of integrated bodily function, but once the ability to act in a coordinated manner has been lost, “life” cannot be restored to a corpse—no matter how “alive” the cells composing the body may yet be. (emphasis mine)

I believe her argument is incredibly solid to refute the notion that the life of a human being begins when the brain begins to function. However, if her argument has a weakness, it is the idea that brain death criteria indicates that an organism cannot act as an integrated whole. If you look at her quote in bold above, I believe a case can be made that a brain dead individual can and does still act as an integrated whole. Although many important systems depend on the brain, many complex, integrated systems are in effect after the total cessation of brain activity.

I’ll give an example. When someone who is brain dead has a line placed, they suffer tissue damage. At first, the coagulation cascade creates an original clot, which later reorganizes to a more permanent one. This involves a complex system with factors that come from the liver, endothelium, and the marrow itself. There is also a complex wound healing response, involving chemotactic factors which initiate the coordinated, organized outlaying of connective tissue for repair. There is also an immune response, which responds to the wound with a complex reaction recognizing antigens and the organism itself, destroying the former and sparing the latter.

I have greatly simplified here, but all of these processes require a form of integration, and each is still active when someone is brain dead. These processes certainly allow the brain dead patient “to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole.” If that is what determines death, it is reasonable that an entity which retains these characteristics should not be considered dead. It is important to realize that the processes I’ve described are not merely local reactions or reflexes, but involve coordination throughout the body. For instance, the liver must make enough factor X, IX, and VII to initiate the clotting mechanism. At the same time the marrow must make enough platelets to begin the process. The overall amount of these clotting factors floating in the bloodstream is based on a negative feedback mechanism, which does not involve the brain. In other words, when the amount of factors decreases, the liver creates more. This is an example of coordination and integration, and is not affected directly by the brain dying.

In many ways it was easier to accept brain death when it was first described in the late 60s when biologic death would almost always occur within a day or two after neurologic criteria for death was met. However, now that we have the capacity to keep a pregnant woman’s body alive for 15 weeks to attempt to save her child, it is becoming more difficult to accept. The last issue of Ethics and Medicine has an article that declares that any medical profession who assists in organ procurement in a brain dead individual is culpable in their death. I disagree, but this issue will continue to be discussed.

Once again, I am not against the currect criteria for donating organs, but would have to question that idea that an individual is actually "dead" in the "brain dead" state.

One last thing: Donald stated that brain death involved the permanent cessation of higher brain functions. Brain death actually involves the permanent cessation of all brain function, both higher and lower.

Is Organ Transplantation an Entitlement?

One of the projects I've been working on is an exploration of the concept of death as it related to organ donation. In short, although I have no problems with the current mechanism of organ donation, and I carry an organ donation card. I do have questions whether or not someone who is considered brain-dead is actually dead. In other words, I believe the concept of brain death is a legal fiction that is tolerated to facilitate organ donation.

Organ donation is certainly a good thing, and has extended the life of a large number of individuals. The question that I would ask is: are we entitled to the organ of another? If we do get sick, it seems that we are increasingly expecting organ transplantation as a normative part of health care. Clearly, that is not the case.

This is emotionally difficult for many. If my son or daughter contracted a virus that caused cardiomyopathy, I would hope and pray for a heart transplant for them. I would also hope that I would recognize that if a heart became available it would be an incredible, heroic act that would extend his life. I would have no right to be;ieve that my son was "owed" a heart transplant, but would be thankful that one was available.

However, it seems that our culture is changing this concept to one of organ entitlement. In other words, if my son needs an organ, he has a right to one, and if one is not available it is a violation of his "rights". This can be seem in many websites promoting organ donation, including this one from the AMA:

The lack of organ donors is a national medical crisis. The cure has nothing to do with money or legislation. It has everything to do with people - staring[sic] with you.

The message: if you do not donate your organs, you could be responsible for the death of another human being. The "lack of organs" is what is causing this "medical crisis".

Here's another example which is very common:

About one-third of the patients who are on the list for heart, liver and lung transplants die while waiting because of the lack of available organs. (emphasis mine)

Why do these patients die? Because of the "lack of available organs."

This is simply false as well as greatly misleading. The number of human beings that die from our "shortage of organs" is precisely zero. No one dies because there is not an organ available. They die because they have a pathology that made their own organs unusable for some reason. This is tragic and should be corrected if at all possible, but there has never been a death certificate that read "cause of death: lack of organ donors".

This entitlement attitude effects many of the attitudes that we have regarding health care. Embryonic stem cell research is promoted by promising cures that have very little chance of occuring, and does not even mention that unique, whole, human embryos must be intentionally killed in the process. This article uses similar terminology to promote human cloning. Kerry pushed this idea in his acceptance speech, calling health care a "right". Truth-impaired Michael Moore is even preparing his next movie on the HMO industry. He got the idea after staging a mock-funeral at an HMO that was balking at paying for a pancreas transplant for a patient (the HMO eventually caved).

Is health care really a "right?" Should we expect that everything be done to save our lives - including removing organs and cells from other human beings? What is responsible for the tragic deaths from disease, the disease itself or our inability to treat it?

These are difficult worldview questions that will have a large influence on our decisions in the future.