This, the final chapter of Tom Bethell’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science follows immediately after the previous chapter in his line of argument. The previous chapter was largely about the mechanism of Natural Selection proposed by Darwin, while Chapter 14: “Evolution: The Missing Evidence” focuses on the attacking specific arguments used to support evolution. This chapter is very similar to his first chapter, Climate Change, in that he cherry-picks certain difficulties in the theory and concludes that it has been disproved while he totally ignores important lines of evidence in favor of the theory.
Summary of Bethell’s Points
- Bethell begins with a summary of the scientific skepticism of Colin Patterson. Patterson, a paleontologist, looked at the mass of fossil evidence and decided that it does not prove evolution to be true, merely it suggests strongly that evolution is true.
- Second, Bethell makes the argument that there are no “half-bats” in the fossil record. Evolutionists take homologous features as evidence of common ancestry (homologous, meaning the same form), such as the homologous arms of humans and bats. He claims then that we cannot identify common ancestry through the fossil record definitively. Next, he points to the differences between octopus eyes and human eyes as evidence of how homology can be misconstrued (since our eyes are very different from those of an octopus, but similar in function, this is called homoplasia).
- Following this, he launches into a criticism of using the fossil record to support evolution at all because he points out we cannot find all of the links in the fossil record.
Few animals are preserved, to be sure, but those that were handicapped compared to their better-adapted successors (to adopt Darwin’s storyline) would surely be more likely than their “new and improved” competitors to have stumbled into swamps and tar pits and so have been preserved.
- Restating and strengthening a previous argument, he states that even a complete fossil record does not prove common descent, just a common evolution of form. He then argues, using the words of Phillip E. Johnson, that such gradual evolution of form “illustrates how intelligent designers will typically achieve their purpose by adding variations to a basic design plan.” Thus, gradual change of forms that we take to be evolution is really how God/Designer was acting.
- Using the work of Well’s Icons of Evolution Bethell begins a point-by-point critique of evolution, starting the the woodcuts of various embryos by Ernst Haeckel from the 19th century. These woodcuts, showing the similarity of vertebrate to invertebrate embryos is often pointed to as evidence of evolution. But Haeckel most likely doctored his work extensively, and the likes of Stephen Jay Gould have denounced them as fraudulent.
- The peppered moths experiment conducted by Kettlewell showed that light colored moths resting on tree-trunks were preferentially eaten by birds, thus explaining the rise in dark colored peppered moths during England’s Industrial Revolution. However, in the 1980s, researchers found that moths don’t rest of tree trunks during the day, they typically hide under branches. Thus, Bethell asserts, the peppered moth experiment is worthless.
- The Cambrian Explosion, during which nearly all modern forms of life appeared, is used to argue that there is no common tree of life from which all creatures descend. Prior to the Cambrian Explosion, there seems to be very few complex organisms in the fossil record, but afterwards there are an abundance.
- Bethell points out that the Urey-Miller experiments that created amino acids using only the basic elements and early atmosphere on Earth used some mistaken assumptions. Bethell then states, without sourcing anything, that experiments done in the 1970s do not work in the same fashion with gases then thought to dominate the atmosphere.
- Darwin’s Finches are then the subject of Bethell’s next critique. Though I mention it here only for completeness, there is not enough information or sourcing in this small section to even merit a review.
- Finally, Bethell argues that no new species have been produced in the laboratory. In fact, after many successive generations, extreme mutations tend to revert to a more normal state. This is a long and totally unsourced section that Bethell intends to prove that mutations cannot produce new species, only variations on existing ones.
My Response
I will respond to some of Bethell’s points, but first I have to state that Bethell totally ignored the gathering mass of genetic evidence in support of Evolutionary theory. All species contain the same basic DNA, and many contain the same genes that have mutated over millions of years. Tracking these mutations, and the similarities between altered forms of the same genes, has provided us with much of the same evidence as has the fossil record.
Second, I need to highlight that the method in which Bethell discusses the fossil record is entirely misunderstood. We have fossils dating back to at least 3.8 billion years ago, and probably have unearthed somewhere in the neighborhood of a few million fossils (just a guess). These few million fossils represent the millions of species that have existed over geologic time (less than 1 per species), and if each fossil we miraculously descended one after the other, it would represent less than 1/100 of the entire record of life on this planet. Geologic time is immense, and fossils are such a poorly-preserved record of it that we cannot hope to ever find all of the “links in the chain.” However, throwing out the fossil record as evidence of evolutionary change is not appropriate either. Sure, similarity of forms does not mean similarity of ancestry logically, but it does limit the options severely. And, if similarity of ancestry is the simplest answer that provides the most explanatory power, it is probably the correct theory. Add on to this fact that genetic studies are indeed providing the links between the species beyond just similarity of forms, and a more complete picture of Evolution begins to form. Sure, God/Designer could have altered the genetic code himself, but we have no way of proving or disproving this argument (thus supporting Theistic Evolution, if one wishes).
- Haeckel’s woodcuts were likely doctored, however, there are still some similarities between invertebrate and vertebrate embryos (as well as vast genetic similarities) that are not explained away by attacking the work of one person.
- The Cambrian Explosion is probably a misnomer, as it occurred over a period of 30 million years. The rise in phyla during this period is still remarkable, but probably less so than previously thought (see Wikipedia entry, follow links). Interestingly, most of the macroscopic creature forms that appeared during this period, most are extinct. Other body-plans (the arthropod form is an example) survived and thrived. This is very much a survival-of-the fittest observation that is difficult to explain under ID.
- Bethell’s critique of the Urey-Miller experiments is 30 years old. Modern work, noted in the Wikipedia entry as well, suggests that the atmosphere really was hydrogen rich, and many many variations of the experiment have produced similar, if not more suggestive, results. Additionally, we have discovered amino acids in comets and meteorites, so even if the Urey-Miller experiment were completely incorrect, which it is not, amino acids would have come to Earth non-biologically, and without Design.
- Bethell’s arguments on speciation are only half-true. Breeding of domestic dogs is a good example. All species of domestic dog are inter-fertile (meaning they can reproduce with each other), however they are so different in appearance that we would have classified them as separate species in the fossil record. So, with a few thousand to a million more years of isolated reproduction, domestic dogs may very easily not be all inter-fertile. Things brings up my next point, humans have been trying to create new species in the lab for at most a few hundred years, and breeders have been at it for a few thousand. But these time-scales are so miniscule compared to geologic time that had we been successful in this short time it would have been truly remarkable. Another point that Bethell ignores the evidence from ring species, in which geographically limited species are inter-fertile with their neighbors, but not those farther along the chain. These species are also characterized by gradual changes in appearance and behavior.
I have not read many critiques of Evolution, but if Bethell’s is the best that its opponents have then Evolution is in great shape, scientifically. Sure, the fossil record will be forever incomplete, but new finds continually expand the chain of linkages between species, and new genetic evidence is further strengthening these links. It will never be possible to prove that Evolution is not guided by a Creator with physically-unbounded powers. This fact is what makes Evolution so non-controversial within science. Scientists can easily believe in both Evolution and a Creator. In fact, scientists may be in a position to marvel the most at wonder of their Creator’s works.
Again, Bethell has cherry-picked certain scientific issues that he often thoroughly misconstrues to his readers. Along the way, he ignores the work of generations of scientists who have worked to amass a body of evidence that, while not complete, is amazing in that it is capable at all of understanding things that happened some significant fraction of the age of the universe ago. His critique of Evolution is made so much more hollow by his utter lack of meaningful citation, or of complete consideration of the few issues he presents. He loses so much authority that his editorializing, once a source of much of the rhetorical power of this book, appears almost comical. His argument that unsuccessful mutations of a species should be better preserved in the fossil record presumably because they stumbled into swamps or tar-pits in a stupor, is not only ignorant, it’s ridiculous.
Coming up next, I will look back at all of the chapters, not at their content, but at the manner in which they were written, and write a summary review of Bethell’s work.
I’ve read PIG to Science. I somehow found your blog through a link posted on amazon.com on the review page of the book. I haven’t read all of your chapter by chapter reviews but I’d like to comment on this particular one. You’ve done a good job summurizing the chapter, however your response doesn’t refute anything that was said in the book.
“And, if similarity of ancestry is the simplest answer that provides the most explanatory power, it is probably the correct theory.”
This comment of yours goes to the heart of what his book is trying to say, that today, too many scientists are taking theories with “the most explanatory power” as fact. They then pronounce them as fact for their own personal gain, whether it be for money or fame (you can’t deny this doesn’t happen in light of the recent korean cloning fiasco).
There are two main problems that ‘right-wingers’ have with this type of science.
1. A lot of money is being spent on speculative research that has produced very little (realitivly) e.g. embrionic stem-cell research & Gnome project. All it has produced is to show how little we really do know.
2. This speculative science has become the new ‘religion’… There is no concrete ‘proof’ that driving our SUV’s are going to cause catastrophic global warming. Saying it is so isn’t that much different than saying ‘by angering the trees the volcano god is going to erupt and destroy your village’
Yes there are a lot of facts in regard to such things as stem-cell, evolution, global warming, etc. No mater how plausible the science seems, without proof it shouldn’t dictate laws nor gather more money than it deserves. Scientific facts have been turned on their head too many times to not take caution in touting these facts to the public. Which is the main point of this book.
You say that we haven’t seen speciation events in the lab, but we have. The one I can think of off the top of my head is the fact that lab rabbits that have been bred in captivity for decades can’t mate with wild rabbits of that were of the same species originally. There are other examples with less “advanced” organisms, but I can’t think of them specifically right now, and I don’t have time to Google it.
Mike,
I disagree with your statement about what scientists accept as “fact.” There is a lot of discussion about what scientists do, and there are some very outspoken ones who talk about scientific facts, but the truth is that science cannot produce anything other than observations and well-supported theories. Evolution is such a very-well-supported theory, but it is not and will never be a fact in the colloquial sense of the word. However, the scientific use of the word “theory” has a different meaning than the common usage as well.
In response to your two points:
1) The return on investment from “speculative research” is extremely debatable, and I think your statement that very little, even relatively, is being returned is absolutely untrue. Basic research led to the creation of silicon microchips, an invention that has revolutionized our entire world. I could surely list dozens of such advances. Also, showing how little we know is invaluable as well, because in shedding false theories we come closer to the truth.
2) Your strict definition of “proof” is absolutely unachievable by science. There is concrete evidence that driving your SUV will cause global warming, though how catostrophic it will be depends on speculation. Your SUV releases more CO2 than other vehicles, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases are building up in the atmosphere, our planet is warming, greenhouses gases cause the planet to warm, therefore driving your SUV contributes to global warming in greater proportion than other vehicles will. I don’t know what more “proof” is required if you cannot accept logical lines of evidence that lead to a specific conclusion.
Finally, I disagree that I did not refute any of Bethell’s points. Perhaps you do not agree with my refutation, but that is your opinion to hold.
[…] Anthonares: “The P.I.G. to Science”: Bethell’s Evolution Misunderstanding […]
And I wouldn’t mind adding that when it comes to proof some scientists are still arguing over things like inductive theory as opposed to deductive theory, really a philisophical problem. Anyway theories of best explanation are in my opinion the best way to go, the reason being without hypothesising on a topic then no research into the validity of the theory can take place, also when the theory is replaced by varification/falsification via research we will see that the new theory is “the simplest answer that provides the most explanatory power” until something else comes along so there can be no issue with scientists pursuing science in this way. To be honest this is how its always been done think Newton to Einstein.
Dear evolutionists, you didn’t cite any evidence as to why he was wrong, all you did essentially was say, “He’s wrong because I said so.” Me saying,
“Earth is only 13,000 years old because many generations of scientists have said so” is not evidence.
Or
“He clearly did not understood how the flood took place and was possible, and ignored much evidence which shows the flood clearly happened” isn’t true merely because I said so.
Got that?
someone,
I don’t like responding to comments like yours, mainly because it’s extremely rude to skim over an article, obviously not reading it thoroughly, and then post your judgment below. But, I’ll take your comment more seriously than you took my article and address it now.
Firstly, you’re wrong. I cited my evidence several times. In fact, I did as well or better than Bethell on many points which is remarkable because his is a supposedly a work of non-fiction, and book reviews typically aren’t required the same stringency.
Aside from that, I refer to a body of scientific work that can easily be sought out on its own. Your analogy to evidence for the feasibility of the flood would lead one down a twisted path of theological musings peppered with Biblical quotes. My evidence has been compiled by people actually honestly trying to learn from the world, yours has been gathered by people imposing their limited understanding upon it.
If you’d really like to see overwhelming evidence, check out Talk Origins.com where every single one of these points is addressed in detail. In addition, they have compiled a large database of evidence for evolution.
But, then you probably don’t give a shit about actual empirical evidence. Perhaps you should visit this museum, where the kind of “evidence” you respond to is on display.