The Emperor Has No Clothes

Naturalism and The Theory of Evolution  Sean D. Pitman, M.D. © November 2006 Intro  New Topics  Older Topic Updates  Essays  Presentations  Articles  Debates  Links  Site Search  Gallup Poll  Videos  Personal Profile    Best Viewed with: Internet Explorer (Screen Resolution of 1024×768):     Viewing Videos: Requires use of ActiveX controls (must be enabled in IE options: Tools, Internet Options, Security, Custom Level, Enable Active X) This website is a rough draft collection of my own notes and thoughts as well as the thoughts of many others concerning the theories of evolution and design.    All feedback is certainly welcome and appreciated.  I hope that you find the ideas discussed here at least interesting and thought provoking.   Seanpit@gmail.com       New or Updated Topics   as of May 2008   The Theory of Evolution: True Science or Dogma?   as of February 2008   Nested Hierarchy Equals Common Descent?Chicken Teeth and Dinosaurs   as of November 2007   Review of Kenneth Miller’s Interview with NOVAAlmost everyone has heard the children’s story by Hans Christian Andersen entitled, “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. It is a very interesting story about human nature.  When the Emperor parades around in clothes that are invisible no one says anything because everybody thinks that if they cannot see the clothes that they are stupid, ignorant, or insane. . . or at least others will think that they are.  The farce continues until a child exclaims, “The Emperor has no clothes!”   This paper deals specifically with the theory of evolution and the hold that this theory has taken upon the scientific community as well as the popular imagination.  The theory of evolution has become so popular and so pervasive that it is difficult for anyone to question it without being branded as, “ignorant, stupid, or insane.” ¹ The passion of those who hold such views testifies to their firm belief in evolution as “more than a theory.”  So why don’t I get it?   What is wrong with me? Some might suggest that I am too biased by my upbringing or religious background to see the truth of the theory of evolution.  Certainly it is true that I am human, prone to bias.  But, at least I am aware of this and really do desire to know the truth – wherever it may lead.   I am a firm believer in the scientific method and in its power to increase human knowledge of all knowable truth concerning the world outside the mind – to include “religious” ideas when those ideas make some sort of claim about some force acting on physical things around or within us with intelligent or deliberate intent.    Interestingly enough though, the scientific method does not detect truth directly. The power of the scientific method comes from its ability to detect error, thereby limiting the places where truth may be found.  Since no theory is ever fully proven by the scientific method, no one should ever consider any theory or even “fact” above all question. When a theory or interpretation can no longer be questioned, it leaves the realm of science and moves into the realm of holy, untouchable, religious dogma.  Often the thought crosses my mind that scientists are just as fervent and religious in their thinking as any other church-going community. The only difference is the object of worship.  I’m not saying that a little religious zeal is a bad thing – even for scientists.  Many truths are very important and should be defended.  However, human ideas of “truth” are not or at least should not be above all question.  In fact, truth is made all the more clear when it is challenged.  Why then does it seem like many scientists defend their ideas of naturalism and the theory of evolution as if their lives and very souls depended on it? The dedication of the scientific community at large to these ideas is generally no less dogmatic and passionate than the religious fervor of the most hardened sectarian fundamentalist.  And yet, the scientific method really does not support the use of any “a priori” assumptions when evaluating the potential truthfulness of any hypothesis or theory.  The position that the mindless non-deliberate processes of nature are the only types of potentially “natural” forces that can possibly be considered when it comes to explaining the origin and diversity of life on this planet is not a requirement of the scientific method, but is rather a philosophical position.   It all boils down to what scientists define as “natural” verses “supernatural”.  The funny thing is, scientists do theorize the involvement of intelligent minds all the time when it comes to forensic investigations or searches for extraterrestrial intelligence – since these intelligences would be “natural”.  Why then is the origin of life any different?  Upon what basis are all considerations of the workings of an intelligent mind excluded, without any consideration whatsoever, when it comes to determining the origin and diversity of life on this planet? Isn’t it at least theoretically possible that some very intelligent yet “natural” mind might have been behind the origin of life on this planet?  How is this possibility beyond the realm of scientific investigation?    Consider the form of a humble amorphous rock.  Does its form give evidence of deliberate design over a mindless cause? Humans are in fact capable of designing amorphous rocks, but so are very lowly mindless randomly acting natural processes. The same is true if I were to walk by a house in the morning and see that it had a broken window. In this case I could quite rationally hypothesize either a mindless non-deliberate cause (i.e., a tree limb, strong gust of wind, hail from a storm, etc) or a deliberate intelligent cause (i.e., a robber, a kid with rock or pellet gun, etc).  However, if I were to walk by that same house later in the day and find that this same window had been repaired, how easy would it be for me to hypothesize a random mindless process as a cause? The same thing could be said for analyzing symmetrically intricate crop circles in England or a box of otherwise identical red and white marbles where all the red marbles are on the same side of the box. This line of reasoning might seem fairly convincing if not for the fact that many scientists take on an, “a priori commitment to materialism.”² –  or at least what they define as materialism. What they really do is take on a commitment to an ultimately non-intelligent non-deliberate cause for everything that exists.  This is what is meant by the word “materialism”.  The problem with this notion is that high level information systems, to include those that reach the level of “intelligent minds” do in fact exist and these systems are indeed capable of creative abilities that far exceed those of low-level randomly acting mindless forces of nature.  Why then do scientists assume, from the very start, that the ultimate cause of the phenomenon of “life” was, without question, non-deliberate? Certainly one might conclude that the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of one position over another after extensive testing is done, but the scientific method necessitates no prior commitment to outcome of an intelligent vs. a non-intelligent cause, even an ultimate cause, before the outcome is actually tested.   Scientists do seem to agree on this point, and yet many of them still feel “forced by an a priori adherence to material [i.e., mindless or randomly acting] 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.”  Many go on to explain that “materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”²  And there it is – – Ultimately it is all about the concept of “God”.   No answer can be “God probably did it” for a scientist, by definition, because God is defined as being non-materialistic or outside of Nature.  Therefore, scientists commonly argue that God, if he even exists, is beyond the detection of science – that he cannot be ruled in or out of any equation.   Does this make any sense?  Certainly, scientists are correct in one respect. If an all-powerful God wished to hide from us, he most certainly could do that – no doubt.  However, what if God wished to reveal himself through the physical world?  Would it then be impossible to detect him simply because he is God and God is defined as undetectable?  Would a God who is actually trying to be recognized as enormously powerful and intelligent actually be harder to identify than an intelligent and powerful “alien” civilization sending radiosignals to our planet? It seems as though most scientists are uneasy with any theory that does not have its basis in the workings of a mindless nature for fear that the only alternative to this position, intelligent design, might bring back the darkness of superstition. However, many of these same scientists hope to find evidence, even historically based evidence, of intelligent life in the universe beyond our own world.  Even within our own world, entire scientific disciplines, such as forensic science, are based on discovering the workings of purpose and intelligence.  Clearly then, scientists seem quite confident in their abilities to detect intelligent activity as long as it has nothing to do with the origin of life or the fundamental workings of the universe and it isn’t given the label of “God”.   It seems then that, “Design is ruled out not because it has been shown to be false but because science itself has been defined as applied materialistic [or mindless cause] philosophy.”³  While it is true that science can only work with material phenomena, it is not true that only mindless, non-deliberate, or random forces must be considered as causes, a priori, for all material phenomena.  That notion just isn’t part of the scientific method.  This is a philosophical notion, not scientific one. Yet, this disguised religious philosophy has taken the scientific community by storm. The vanguard theory of evolution has taken on an almost sacred status.  Who dares question it or openly admit that they do not see the emperor’s clothes without putting their reputations and, on occasion, even their careers in jeopardy? I for one have been honestly looking for the emperor’s clothes for some time now.  But, the more I look the more naked he gets.  Surprisingly, I am not alone in my blindness. A number of very highly educated men and women of science have and are openly questioning the sacred status of the theory of evolution.  Of course, we may be too ignorant, stupid, or insane to see the rich clothes that are right there before our very eyes. However, never underestimate the “crazy” or the “blind”. History has often shown that those who were crazy and blind in their own day turned out to be right after all. 1.    Dawkins, Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], “Put Your Money on Evolution”, Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A., “Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution”, in New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34. 2.    Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], “Billions and Billions of Demons”, Review of “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark,” by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997.  3.   Nany Pearcey, “We’re Not in Kansas Anymore – Why secular scientists and media can’t admit that Darwinism might be wrong”, Christianity Today, May 22, 2000 ( http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_ctoday052200.htm ) SDP            

Sean DeVere Pitman, M.D. Loma Linda University School of Medicine, 1993 – 1997 Major, United States Army, active duty 1997 – 2001  Residency: Pathology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, 2001 – 2005 Fellowship: Hematology, City of Hope National Medical Center, 2005 – 2006 Email: Seanpit@gmail.com     The Emperor’s New Clothes By:  Hans Christian Anderson        Once upon a time there lived a vain emperor whose only worry in life was to dress in elegant clothes. He changed clothes almost every hour and loved to show them off to his people.      Word of the Emperor’s refined habits spread over his kingdom and beyond. Two scoundrels who had heard of the Emperor’s vanity decided to take advantage of it. They introduced themselves at the gates of the palace with a scheme in mind.      “We are two very good tailors and after many years of research we have invented an extraordinary method to weave a cloth so light and fine that it looks invisible. As a matter of fact it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality.”      The chief of the guards heard the scoundrel’s strange story and sent for the court chamberlain. The chamberlain notified the prime minister, who ran to the Emperor and disclosed the incredible news. The Emperor’s curiosity got the better of him and he decided to see the two scoundrels.      “Besides being invisible, your Highness, this cloth will be woven in colors and patterns created especially for you.” The emperor gave the two men a bag of gold coins in exchange for their promise to begin working on the fabric immediately.      “Just tell us what you need to get started and we’ll give it to you.” The two scoundrels asked for a loom, silk, gold thread and then pretended to begin working. The Emperor thought he had spent his money quite well; in addition to getting a new extraordinary suit, he would discover which of his subjects were ignorant and incompetent. A few days later, he called the old and wise prime minister, who was considered by everyone as a man with common sense.      “Go and see how the work is proceeding,” the Emperor told him, “and come back to let me know.”      The prime minister was welcomed by the two scoundrels. “We’re almost finished, but we need a lot more gold thread. Here, Excellency! Admire the colors, feel the softness!” The old man bent over the loom and tried to see the fabric that was not there. He felt cold sweat on his forehead.      “I can’t see anything,” he thought. “If I see nothing, that means I’m stupid! Or, worse, incompetent!” If the prime minister admitted that he didn’t see anything, he would be discharged from his office. “What a marvelous fabric, he said then. “I’ll certainly tell the Emperor.” The two scoundrels rubbed their hands gleefully. They had almost made it. More thread was requested to finish the work.      Finally, the Emperor received the announcement that the two tailors had come to take all the measurements needed to sew his new suit.      “Come in,” the Emperor ordered. Even as they bowed, the two scoundrels pretended to be holding a large roll of fabric.      “Here it is your Highness, the result of our labor,” the scoundrels said. “We have worked night and day but, at last, the most beautiful fabric in the world is ready for you. Look at the colors and feel how fine it is.” Of course the Emperor did not see any colors and could not feel any cloth between his fingers. He panicked and felt like fainting. But luckily the throne was right behind him and he sat down. But when he realized that no one could know that he did not see the fabric, he felt better. Nobody could find out he was stupid and incompetent. And the Emperor didn’t know that everybody else around him thought and did the very same thing.      The farce continued as the two scoundrels had foreseen it. Once they had taken the measurements, the two began cutting the air with scissors while sewing with their needles an invisible cloth.      “Your Highness, you’ll have to take off your clothes to try on your new ones.” The two scoundrels draped the new clothes on him and then held up a mirror. The Emperor was embarrassed but since none of his bystanders were, he felt relieved.      “Yes, this is a beautiful suit and it looks very good on me,” the Emperor said trying to look comfortable. “You’ve done a fine job.”      “Your Majesty,” the prime minister said, “we have a request for you. The people have found out about this extraordinary fabric and they are anxious to see you in your new suit.” The Emperor was doubtful about showing himself naked to the people, but then he abandoned his fears. After all, no one would know about it except the ignorant and the incompetent.      “All right,” he said. “I will grant the people this privilege.” He summoned his carriage and the ceremonial parade was formed. A group of dignitaries walked at the very front of the procession and anxiously scrutinized the faces of the people in the street. All the people had gathered in the main square, pushing and shoving to get a better look. An applause welcomed the regal procession. Everyone wanted to know how stupid or incompetent his or her neighbor was but, as the Emperor passed, a strange murmur rose from the crowd.      Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: “Look at the Emperor’s new clothes. They’re beautiful!”      “What a marvelous train!”      “And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life.” They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.      A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.      “The Emperor is naked,” he said.      “Fool!” his father reprimanded, running after him. “Don’t talk nonsense!” He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy’s remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:      “The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It’s true!”      The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn’t see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.               Since June 1, 2002  

Newer Presentations   Darwin vs. God The Best Arguments Against Intelligent Design The Geologic Column The Fossil Record Early Man     

Older Presentations   Is Intelligent Design Theory A True Science? Overview of Geology, Fossils, and Genetics The Best Arguments Against Intelligent Design The Geologic Column The Geologic Column 2 (Large File) All I Need is Time Ancient Ice Mutations Tree Ring Dating and Radiocarbon    

Articles and Essays   Nobel Laureates Who Favor Intelligent Design The Potential Unity of Science and Religion Problems with Dendrochronology Untrustworthy Tree-ring Studies – Keenan Downwind Radiocarbon Dates – Keenan Amino Acid Racemization – Collins Amino Acid Racemization 2 Tephra from GRIP not from Thera Mt. Mazama Dating – INQUA Early Hominid Semicircular Canals – Spoor Compensatory Mutations Antibody Lactase Enzymes Chloroquine Resistance Cytochrome C Variability Sequence Space Ratios – Sauer and Olson Ratio of Functional Proteins Determining Evolutionary Potential – Hall, 1998 Understanding Evolutionary Potential – Hall, 1999 Phage Evolution Experiment – Hayashi Mutation Rates in Humans – Nachman and Crowell Pseudogenes in Ribonuclease Evolution Tsunami Kills Gulf Dinosaurs Rapid Lava Dam Failure in Grand Canyon Rapid Lava Dam Failure in Grand Canyon 2 Rapid Lava Dam Failure in Grand Canyon 3 Rapid Lava Dam Failure in Grand Canyon 4 Rapid Lithification Rates Chemical Signatures in Stacked Forest Layers Coalified Wood and U-Pb Ratios – Gentry Colorado River Erosion Rates Erosion Rates of Granite Stromatolites Stromatolites 2 Dembski – Searching Large Spaces Entropy, Chaos, Complexity – Baranger Kolmogorov Complexity Science and Religion No Such Thing as True Randomness Richard E. Smalley (Nobel Laureate) Endorses Intelligent Design    

Debates   Most Recent God of the Gaps Ladder of Complexity Chaos and Complexity Confusing Chaos with Complexity Irreducible Complexity All Functions are Irreducibly Complex Stacking the Deck The Density of Beneficial Functions Function Flexibility The Limits of Functional Flexibility Functions based on Deregulation Single Protein Functions BCR/ABL Chimeric Protein Evolving Bacteria Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design A Circle Within a Circle Crop Circles Mindless vs. Mindful Neandertal DNA Human/Chimp phylogenies Geology The Geologic Column Fish Fossils Matters of Faith Evidence of Things Unseen The Two Impossible Options Warren H. Johns’ Local Flood Arguments                

Older Topic Updates:   as of March 2007 SETI vs. ID