There have been a few crazy letters to the editor recently attacking evolution.  I heard this type of thinking, which is usually passed down through the religion meme, described as a “Tradition of Ignorance”.  Ignorance is a negative word, but really it boils down to not knowing something.  If you don’t understand something, you probably shouldn’t argue for or against it.  I am going to trust that the thousands of working scientists today understand evolution and that they are right when calling it a fact.  It is too bad that after 150 years with Darwin’s amazing discovery that we are still arguing with religious fundamentalists about it.

Here are the letters in chronological order.

Monday, October 24, 2011

The History Channel recently aired “History of the World in Two Hours,” which showed how man evolved from bacteria to fish to amphibian and so on.

If you believe in evolution as taught in our public schools, I challenge you to read part one of “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown PhD, seventh edition, 2001.

This book, recently loaned to me by my pastor, will scientifically show how evolution and Darwin don’t have a prayer.

Ray Greff

Rapid City

My reply was printed just two day later.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

In a recent letter, Ray Greff promoted the book, “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown.  Greff writes that the book “will scientifically show how evolution and Darwin don’t have a prayer.”

Walt Brown isn’t a biologist, and his self-published book, “In the Beginning,” is the lowest order of junk science.  It’s not just hogwash about evolution but makes claims (without credible evidence) that directly conflict with well-established biology, geology and cosmology.

The book quotes, treating them as reliable scientific sources, The Moscow Daily and Creation Research Quarterly.  When he does cite reputable publications such as Science, quotes are taken out of context or are outright fabrications.

Did I write “junk science?”  I meant “junk.”

If your faith demands belief in creationism, then you better stick to faith to support your claims and stay away from science. Evolution is the most well-proven and understood concept in all of science, with five distinct lines of evidence based on DNA, fossil record, embryology, geography and classification, respectively.

I would recommend “Why Evolution Is True” by Jerry Coyne or “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins as actual science books, written by biologists, discussing evolution and its evidence.

Jason Jackson

Rapid City

That got the attention of a local politician named Don Kopp who apparently has written anti-science letters to the Rapid City Journal before.  Here is his somewhat rambling reply.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Ray Greff’s attack on the religion of atheism by going after the Holy Grail (evolution) is guaranteed to draw an emotional response from the keepers of “real science.”

After all, everyone knows that “real science” predicts that nothing will produce something.

As Paul Davies, a physicist explains in his book, “Edge of Infinity”:

“The Big Bang represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principals.”

Ah, you gotta love how well miracles fit into their science.

Or as George Wald, Nobel Prize recipient at Harvard stated: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result.”

Shame on you, Mr. Greff, for believing that creationism demonstrates the giver of life must also be living.  That’s “junk science.”

Dr. Giesler (University of Colorado) said: “May well be that creationism is correct about origins. But even if it were correct, it’s still not scientific.”

What the heck does truth have to do with it, anyway?  Mr. Greff, you just gotta have more faith.

Don Kopp

Rapid City

At this point I wasn’t sure if I should reply.  The letter was terribly written, and almost stands in opposition to itself.  In the end I decided I should continue to defend science and replied.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Recent letters attacking evolution have failed to actually assail any of the salient points regarding the scientific concept. In the most recent letter, Don Kopp does everything except write about any of the evidence, instead using a series of straw man and ad hominem attacks, and cherry picking quotes.

He tries to tie evolution to the “religion of atheism,” which is like calling “not collecting stamps” a hobby, and neglects that the majority of Americans supporting evolution are religious. He steers a wide path around any discussion of the actual science involved.

DNA-based data provides the strongest of five distinct lines of evidence for evolution. Developed in the 1980s, with work continuing through today, DNA evidence for evolution is so convincing that it should push away all but the most unreasonable doubts.

We have also seen evolution played out before our eyes in the lab and nature. A recent study found that 99.9 percent of working scientists accept evolution, due to this overwhelming evidence.

There is no controversy, save amongst religious fundamentalists.

I would encourage such individuals to either stick to faith, or bring an intellectually honest, science-based argument to the table. I am doubtful this will occur.

Jason Jackson

Rapid City

Apparently Mr. Kopp felt he needed to reply, and this time really showed that he doesn’t actually understand the topics at hand.  I am sad to say that this is how almost every debate I have had with any creationist has gone.  They usually don’t understand what evolution is, sometimes thinking it is everything from the big bang to abiogenesis to a religious creed.  When they do have some grasp on some part of the concept of evolution they usually hold on to it tightly, even if it is a minor point.  And many creationists simply aren’t very good at scientific thinking.  They may have a wealth of scientific knowledge on a number of subjects, but the scientific method is foreign to them.  Here was his reply.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Jason Jackson, I was in total agreement with one of your evolution-minded colleagues who stated that the spontaneous generation of life from non-life is impossible. Then you reply that DNA presents the best evidence for evolution — really?

DNA in symbiosis with its RNA counterpart is so incredibly complex that it does, in fact, make spontaneous generation impossible as Dr. Wald so stated.

Let the reader understand: There is no random process that can assemble such complexity.  To believe otherwise is akin to thinking a tornado passing through a junk yard could randomly pick all the right components, then assemble them into a space shuttle.

In transcription, an RNA uses a gene in the DNA as a template to create a strand of messenger RNA (mRNA). The RNA unzips a section of DNA then copies it.

This  process continues trillions of times without error. If an error does occur, it is called a mutation, and according to evolution, this is how complexity occurred!  We simply mutated upward. The second law of thermodynamics contradicts this idea.

This scientific fact can be stated without contradiction: “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” — Psalm 139:14

Don Kopp

Rapid City

I almost laughed out loud when I saw the stuff about the second law of thermodynamics.  But really it is sad, because he is just throwing mumbo-jumbo out there and people may very well believe it.  I responded.

Friday, November 25, 2011

The letter by Don Kopp published Nov. 20 highlights the need for science education in general and an accurate teaching of evolution in particular.

He argues that evolution is random.  This is wrong, but a common misunderstanding.

A gene may randomly mutate to provide a different trait.  If this trait helps an individual survive to pass along the gene, then that gene is more likely to be found in the population in general over subsequent generations. The environment acts as a filter, and we call that filter natural selection.

This is the key to evolution.  Saying evolution is based on randomness would be to say that Miles Davis made music with air, a misleading and intellectually dishonest statement.

Second, evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  To say so betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the core principles of science. The law (to paraphrase) states that order goes to disorder in a closed system.

The Earth is not a closed system, and this argument is so obviously wrong that I am surprised it was made.

For a better explanation of evolution, I would suggest “The Greatest Show on Earth,” written by eminent biologist Richard Dawkins.

Jason Jackson

Rapid City

I doubt I convinced Mr. Kopp of anything, though that would be quite an achievement.  My goal in these letters was two fold.  First, I didn’t want such individuals to come off as having some special knowledge or expertise in evolutionary science in such a public forum.  Second, I wanted to refute these false claims for those that might just be opening their eyes to science, such as our youth.  When I was in high school I regularly read the newspaper, and I cringe at the idea that some young girl or boy might be swayed by the opinion of a public leader such as Mr. Kopp, and lead away from a career in life sciences.

In science, the central idea is to form a hypothesis about a particular subject and then test it. Empirical data is collected via experimentation or observation. If the hypothesis is well supported by these data we call it a theory. In the world of modern science this theory may be written up in a paper and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. At this point an editor or editors decide if the paper is serious and worthy of consideration, and if so hands it off for review by various experts to ensure that the math and science represented in the paper seem on the level. After all of this, the paper is published and the scientific community in general, and particularly those scientists with expertise in the subject matter, will debate the validity of the theory. Scientists may reproduce experiments described in the paper, or concoct new experiments to test the theory. Eventually the theory either amasses a large amount of supporting data from various experts, or it is disproven.

This is modern science and it has given us the miracles of our modern world. But for those of us that are not professional scientists, reading professional journals can be challenging. We instead turn to those scientists and qualified journalists that write books on scientific theories, relying on their arguments to form our own opinions. Good science writers are honest and forthcoming about both the strengths and weaknesses of the theories they present. They also ensure that they only represent scientific facts or well supported theories based on peer-reviewed work, and when they go beyond these bounds to speculate they call it out clearly. As always reality is the crucible of science, and a good science writer ensures that what they are presenting to the general public is backed up.

The 30th Anniversary Edition of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is one of the finest examples of good science writing I have encountered. It is, of course, a classic in popular science, so much so that I have often felt slightly embarrassed to have never read it when the subject of the book occasionally comes up amongst friends and acquaintances.  I am happy to report that I have rectified this situation, and that the book was better than I had hoped.

The version I picked up was the 30th Anniversary Edition, released in 2006.  The original book published in 1976 contained eleven chapters.  An update in 1989 added extensive footnotes to the book and two additional chapters.  The 30th edition is basically the 1989 version with the original forward restored to the book, and a new forward by Richard Dawkins added as well.  Keep in mind the major update in 1989 as I move forward in my review.

First, the book centers around what Dr. Dawkins refers to as the “selfish gene”, or as he has also called it, the “immortal gene.”  His writing describes evolution by natural selection by concentrating on the thing actually being selected: the gene.  Throughout the first several chapters of the book Dawkins again and again describes how we should think about evolution and natural selection in terms of how genes replicate down through the generation, and that plants and animals are akin to replicator machines.  It is a fascinating, clear-headed take on how evolution actually works.

Dawkins covers one evolutionary puzzle after another, showing how even biologists can make incorrect assumptions based on evolution of the group or species instead of concentrating on the thing replicating, which is of course the selfish gene.  The author relies heavily on his own published works, and the works of other experts in the field, to illustrate that not only is the selfish gene idea a good one but that it conforms extremely well to experimental evidence.  One take on experimentation that I found fascinating was the use of computer simulations of various evolutionary “strategies”.  Dawkins and others, in 1976, we already simulating evolution in computers using game theory as a guide.  Of course this work only grew in the years up to the update of the book in 1989.

At the time of the 1989 release, Dawkins included a robust set of footnotes.  True to the themes of good science writing, Dawkins left both the good and bad, the correct and incorrect, in place in the book and provides detailed explanations in the footnotes.  On more than one occasion Dawkins takes great pains to show why he was wrong about a particular detail, giving credit to other scientists when due.  This is a type of intellectual honesty that must be appreciated and held up as a goal for which all should strive.  Reading through the original 11 chapters, I managed to read about 95% of the footnotes, and it was a treat to have the years peeled back like an onion, and shown how science had progressed in the field.

The final chapter of the original book introduced the idea that evolution and replication are not tied to biology, but are general principles of nature.  To this end Dawkins almost offhandedly introduces the meme.  Dawkins himself mentions in the footnotes how this concept, introduced in the last chapter almost as an afterthought, has taken on a life of its own and now has research confirming it.  Meme has entered the popular lexicon, and is in now in the dictionary.  All of this adds an exciting new dimension to an already fascinating book.

The final (new) chapter of the book discusses Dawkins’s continuing work that relates to The Selfish Gene, explicitly referring to The Extended Phenotype.  That book is now on my reading list for future consumption.

I cannot recommend The Selfish Gene enough.  It is clearly written, well presented book that spells out the nature of evolution.  It has held up amazingly well over the last 35 years, which is a true test of such a book.  I believe it will be a classic in science writing for years to come.