Creationists and Genetics
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
Creationists often claim that the science of genetics proves that creationism is correct, or that the theory of Evolution is flawed, often without advancing any specific claims about genetics to try to substantiate this claim.
[edit] Discussion
The claim that genetics supports creationism or refutes evolution seems very strange to anyone who has studied these subjects, since if one had to summarize the theory of evolution in a single word, that word would be genetics.
This point, amongst others, is made forcibly in a public policy statement released by the Genetics Society of America; we have highlighted some of the more telling remarks:
- The GSA supports educating students in genetics and consequently feels it important to express its views on the teaching of evolution in elementary and secondary schools. The GSA strongly endorses such teaching, as genetics and evolution are two very closely interwoven disciplines. In fact, evolution might be summarized as population genetics over time. Some people have been opposed to the teaching of evolution because "it is only a theory." Such opposition rests on a mistaken understanding of what defines a scientific theory. In common usage "theory" means "conjecture" or "speculation," whereas in scientific usage it means a systematically organized body of knowledge that explains a large set of observations and makes testable predictions.
- Science operates first by observation and then by developing a hypothesis as a preliminary explanation of the data. A theory is a hypothesis that has been subsequently confirmed by abundant, consistent data obtained from tests of the hypothesis. For example, the atomic theory explains the behavior of physical substances in terms of the properties of elementary particles (atoms) and their combinations (molecules). This theory accounts for so many observations that it is accepted as the basis for all of chemistry.
- The theory of evolution by natural selection is also such a confirmed hypothesis, as developed through the ongoing investigation and understanding of many different areas of biological, chemical, physical and earth science. As such, it is modifiable and constantly refined as new research and information come to light. Without evolutionary theory, we would be forced to completely discard much of what we understand about fields such as genetics, botany, zoology, paleontology, and anthropology.
- "Scientific creationism," "intelligent design," and other terms have been offered as alternative explanations for past and present biological processes. However, these represent a collection of beliefs usually based on a literal interpretation of religious texts and are thus disguises for religious doctrine, and not scientific theories. They ignore the empirical data around us and fail to provide a testable hypothesis. Consequently, since no testable explanation for biological history has been provided by these alternative views, they cannot be considered scientific theories and should not be part of school science curricula. They are more appropriate for courses in literature, sociology, or religion.
- As evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the biological history of life and as the GSA supports the education of students in genetics, the GSA hereby endorses the teaching of the facts and theory of evolution at all levels, including in elementary and secondary schools.[1]
It is instructive to see what the great names in genetics think of creationism. In 1986, acting as amici curiae in the case of Edwards .v Aguillard, seventy-two Nobel Prize winning scientists put their name to the following statement:
- Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.[2]
The signatories included Francis Crick and James Watson, discoverers of the structure of DNA, Har Khorana and Marshall Nirenberg, who deciphered the genetic code, Severo Ochoa, who discovered how DNA is transcribed into RNA, Robert Holley, who first described the structure of transfer RNA, David Baltimore, Howard Temin and Renato Dulbecco, discoverers of reverse transcriptase, Arthur Kornberg, the first man to isolate a DNA polymerase, Salvador Luria, who discovered restriction enzymes, Hamilton Smith, who discovered type II restriction enzymes and who sequenced the first bacterial genome, Barbara McClintock, who discovered transposons, and George Snell, who discovered the genetic factors underlying transplant acceptance or rejection.
This list is of course more impressive to people with knowledge of genetics, but we presume that even the dullest creationist will have heard of DNA and the genetic code.
[edit] Specific claims
The most usual creationist claim about genetics is simply that it proves them right; to make a more specific claim would usually require some sort of knowledge of genetics. However, there are two or three less vague claims that crop up now and then.
The first involves misunderstanding the role of mutation in the theory of evolution: for this, see our article on Mutation and Evolution.
The second is to claim that there are no beneficial mutations: for a collection of counterexamples, see our article on Beneficial Mutations.
A third is to claim that mutations "cannot increase information": for three good reasons why this is nonsense, consult our article on Mutations and Information.
