There's a battle over evolution education in Texas right now. The latest round is coming up soon in Austin, with the State Board of Education hearing testimony on both sides of the controversy. There is a tug-of-war between those who want to teach only their corner on truth and those who would prefer to include critical analysis and discuss developments that challenge neo-Darwinian dogma.
This is unfortunate, because at least in areas of my specialization, using computers and mathematics to model evolution, the problems are fascinating and would be both fun and instructive to teach.
Gregory Chaitin, arguably the greatest and most creative mathematician of my generation, lays out the stakes: "The honor of mathematics requires us to come up with a mathematical theory of evolution and either prove that Darwin was wrong or right!"
To establish credibility, a science should be backed by mathematics and models wherever possible. Even some soft sciences, like finance, offer compelling mathematical and computer models that win Nobel prizes.
And here's where it gets interesting for modern evolutionary theory: Mathematics has shown that blind evolution by itself is unable to create meaningful information. Instead, one or more available reservoirs of knowledge, some of which are called oracles by computer science, guide all evolutionary simulations.
In other words, in every computer simulation of evolutionary models, one or more sources of embedded knowledge is tapped to give the illusion of astonishing evolutionary progress. In contrast, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory posits a blind process. This simply doesn't work.
Many attempts have been made to simulate evolution on a computer. None has truly succeeded. For instance, the highly celebrated evolutionary computer program Tierra has, by the admission of its creator, failed to achieve anything close to what was anticipated. Despite numerous tweaks and many runs, the program was stillborn with respect to its goal of re-creating the Cambrian explosion.
Avida, another attempt to simulate Darwinian evolution, is noteworthy because one of its creators, Robert Pennock, testified at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial of a Pennsylvania school district sued because its biology courses briefly mention the theory of intelligent design as an alternative to modern evolutionary theory. "In the [Avida] system, we're not simulating evolution," Pennock testified. "Evolution is actually happening." Research after the trial's conclusion showed that embedded oracles and careful tuning, not evolution, are responsible for the Avida's success.
Charles Darwin admitted the need for mathematical modeling in science. "Every new body of discovery is mathematical in form," he wrote, "because there is no other guidance we can have." Darwin also confessed his own lack of skill in this area. "I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics, for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense."
I would agree, and I hope defenders of neo-Darwinian evolution respond to the challenges of mathematics and modeling with more than hand waving and anecdotes.
University of Chicago microbiologist James Shapiro complains in his book Evolution: A View From the 21st Century, "Most debates about evolution sound like the last fifty years of research in molecular biology had never occurred." This is certainly the case for the mathematical modeling of evolution. Texas educators need, at minimum, to help students evaluate developments in modern evolutionary theory.
Robert J. Marks is a professor of engineering at Baylor University, a senior researcher at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, and the co-author of Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics with William Dembski and Winston Ewert. Email: Robert_Marks@baylor.edu
Custom HTML Preview
Dr. Marks has been plying his version of "intelligent design" creationism for several decades, but nobody who knows anything about the modern theory of evolution is fooled. Dr. Marks' smoke and mirrors "calculations" have not advanced the modern theory of evolution one jot and, ironically, neither has his "work" had an effect on "intelligent design" creationism.
Dr. Marks throws up a lot of dust and confusion in this disjointed and incomprehensible opinion piece which, at the end of the day is just that, an opinion; no more or less valuable than mine, or yours.
Unfortunately, Dr. Marks does a grave disservice to Baylor University, his own profession and science education in general in promoting supernatural explanations for sound science.
Contrary to Dr. Marks unsupported assertion, the modern theory of evolution s replete with mathematical models accurately describing everything from biodiversity to genetic drift. Perhaps the good doctor could better use his time to come up to speed on the state of mathematical modeling supporting the modern theory of evolution, rather than sniping about a subject with which he is obviously unfamiliar.
This comment has been deleted
@DocBill
"promoting supernatural explanations for sound science." Marks has done no such thing. He is promoting mathematical modelling of evolutionary mechanisms which he is perfectly capable of doing himself. And he promotes the scientific detection of design in nature. It is people like yourself with a priori agenda who want to forbid discussion of design detection. Below I link a Scientific American article on octopuses that mentions the word 'design' 4 times. but before I link maybe somebody can explain why the evolution literature is replete with repetitive saying over and over that features "evolved"? Here is just one example in the article:
"Octopuses ... stand apart from other invertebrates, having evolved with much larger nervous systems...."
Why not just "Octopuses ... stand apart from other invertebrates, having much larger nervous systems...."
We know why. Writers are are so insecure in Darwinian theory that it has to be said millions of times in every publication that features 'evolve'
But the writers of this piece slipped up and let common intuition have its way, and mentioned 'design' 4 times:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mind-of-an-octopus/
Marks is not a scientist. His "ideas" about biology, evolution and modern geology, which are established sciences accepted by the Vatican, US mainstream christian national councils, peer reviewed science journals, ALL accredited university science departments, and the US Federal and Supreme Courts based on the evidence, are merely religious fundamentalism dressed up in a lab coat. His ideas are not considered scientific by ANY objective standards but his claims ARE backed by fundamentalist religious non scientific groups like the Discovery Institute (informally known as the Discotute) fundamentalist churches and other non scientific groups.
It is a disgrace to Texas science standards that the 'tuters have been able to get
"god did it, its a miracle" to be even considered as having any established scientific credibility.
When Texas students are able to write on their next physics examination "god did it" as an answer to a physics problem, texas will truly have stablished its position as the most scientifically illiterate state in the union. Oogity Boogity ! Its a miracle!
@George_Griselda Do you know anything of Robert Marks to back up what you say? He is an expert at information theory, signals and systems and informatics, with a Ph.D in electrical engineering. In case you didn't know, information theory was founded by Claude Shannon, electrical engineer at Bell Labs in the 1940's. The field of Mark's expertise is highly mathematical and has application to quantum theory as he outlines in a massive book linked below. I used to work with an engineer/applied physicist with an MSEE who went from engineering to earn a Ph.D in physics before coming to work at my company. Link: https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Fourier-Analysis-Its-Applications/dp/0195335929/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1492619047&sr=1-1&keywords=fourier+robert+marks
Handbook of Fourier Analysis & Its Applications
~ Robert J Marks II (author) More about this productI did a web search of evolutionary informatics that Marks talks about. The search revealed Mark's close relationship with Intelligent Design dogma which suggests caution in accepting his conclusions about mathematical modeling in evolution.
Generally, informatics is the science of data processing for storage and retrieval. Evolutionary informatics "merges theories of evolution and information, thereby wedding the natural, engineering, and mathematical sciences" according to Evolutionary Informatics Lab (EIL), where Marks is a senior researcher. EIL was once part of Baylor but was found too closely allied to Intelligent Design and Baylor removed reference to it. EIL continues to be mirrored in Christian doctrine, god belief, and Intelligent Design that contends "the universe could not have occurred merely by a combination of chance and necessity and instead requires application of external information".
In other words, Marks has a predisposition for his views. In fact, all mathematical modeling generates outcomes according to the information and its structuring. So it is to be expected evolution modeling would be no different. The controversy isn't that information is needed but the information introduced and the mathematical structuring, not as Marks contends that because the outcome depends on information and structure god must be present.
What this means is that Marks is tainting critical analysis with his preconceptions and that is not in the interests of educating our kids.
@BrianBaldwin "Generally, informatics is the science of data processing for storage and retrieval."
It is not. What you describe is information technology. Informatics in the context of Marks is in applying information theory, which is highly mathematical and of which you apparently know nothing, to problems of a statistical and genetic nature.
So far as educating our kids, in many states, a teacher referring students to this thread on the Morning News could be fired. We obviously have a controversy here. The standard neo-Darwinian dogma of "there is no controversy" is a lie. All you have to do is read what James Shapiro has written in in many places many times. He is microbiologist at the University of Chicago and apparently is not on good terms with evolutionary biologists even at his own university, as you can see from the link below. Yet to bring this up in the classroom could get a techer fired. This is what the Texas bill is intended to prevent. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/jerry-coyne-fails-to-unde_b_1411144.html
This comment has been deleted
This comment has been deleted
@Thomas_A._Groover @BrianBaldwin First, you're right about my knowing nothing about informatics and information theory. That's why I went to my dictionary. From The New Oxford Dictionary: Informatics: "Computing --the science of processing data for storage and retrieval" Isn't that what I wrote? Information theory: "the mathematical study of the coding of information in the form of sequences of symbols, impulses, etc. and of how rapidly such information can be transmitted, e.g.through computer circuits or telecommunications channels." So, I did put informatics in context with Marks by quoting EIL on the subject. It seems the informatics is a science while Information Theory deals in theoretics. Do you know the difference?
Second, because some scientists believe there is a controversy doesn't necessarily make it so. Evolution theory is testable and predicts the same things consistently for everyone regardless of time, place, beliefs, manifestos or whatever. Not even Marks contends otherwise, or that that is controversial. The problem, with his contention, as I understand it, is that it jumps to an untestable conclusion, that can't, by definition, be proved or disproved. Science is in the business of revealing the world through provable theory. So it would seem the so called controversy isn't science.
There's a legitimate reason Shapiro gets criticized by his peers and it's based upon science. It's not out of jealousy or wanting to delegitimatize god-belief, religion, faith, etc. What's not legitimate is to claim such motives of those pressing science and to claim that since science doesn't have all the answers it's all wet. But as I said, I understand the purpose of public school to be educating society sufficiently to be able to self govern. Since this is not a theocracy, god-based views are irrelevant to self governing, and in my view, counter productive. That's why science is taught in science classes, not religion and god-based supernaturalism in Creationisms and Intelligent Design. Except for a narrow band of religious people, that's pretty uncontroversial.
Since I'm not knowledgeable enough in the subject of informatics to have legitimate opinions of my own, I should not seem to be acting as though I am. So I'll grant that Marks' point that education should teach how to challenge knowledge is absolutely appropriate. But I am certain that shouldn't be done in ways that press for retraction of evolution and replacing it with manifestations of religious belief.
This comment has been deleted
Religions have complete certainty, because they are based on faith, but this certainty inhibits the growth of knowledge. Science is never completely certain, because it is always expanding into the unknown.
Science is like a jigsaw puzzle with no borders and no picture to show what the finished puzzle will look like. The pieces of the puzzle are bits of data, pieces of knowledge, observations of what actually exists.
We have different ideas on how those pieces should fit, and we try various combinations. In early attempts, we sometimes need to scrap an idea, and start over. However, once we get enough pieces together, we almost never scrap what we have. There may be gaps, and there will always be edges, but the basis is sound.
Take atoms. There was early debate about their very existence, but now they are an established fact. At the edges, we have quantum mechanics, which was also doubted, but is now considered fact, even if we don't completely understand all of it.
Evolution is one of those instances where there are many interconnected pieces, and a fairly clear picture. There are gaps, but we shouldn't appeal to another 'god of the gaps'. All this does is squeeze god into ever-smaller realms.
As I suspected, this article is just another attempt by creationists to re-brand their beliefs and sneak their fables into a science class.
@RoderickBower
As I suspected, you don't understand mathematics.
I'm not a young-earth creationist and I believe that religion should be left out of science. I believe that evolution creates new species.If we had absolute proof that humans evolved from primordial slime, it wouldn't shake my faith one bit.
The Bible says very little about creation other than that the universe and everything in it was created by God. It gives a big picture view and doesn't talk about the details. I cringe at those who believe the earth was created in 6 literal days some 6 to 10,000 years ago. All truth is God's truth.
However, the author is correct that current evolutionary theory does not account for the initial appearance of life and the increase in information.
@StillTexan @RoderickBower Evolutionary Theory doesn't address the appearance of life at all. That is a totally separate subject.
@GaryKudrna @StillTexan @RoderickBower
Learn to read, Gary. That is exactly what I wrote:
"However, the author is correct that current evolutionary theory does not account for the initial appearance of life...."
@StillTexan @GaryKudrna @RoderickBower Apologies. However, the way you worded it made it sound like you were accusing evolutionary theory of being flawed because it did not account for the appearance of life.
@GaryKudrna @StillTexan @RoderickBower
Apology accepted, Gary. Thank you.
@StillTexan @RoderickBower therefore "god did it"?
If we supported that concept in science, we'd still think rainbows are miracles and the sun rotates around the earth. Nice try but you still get an F in science and your knowledge of the scientific method. Marks's mathematical models have been REJECTED by science journals, universities, the US courts and mainstream christian national church councils, AND the vatican because they have no basis in science. Mathematics is not science and Marks is not a scientist. Baylor threw him and Dumbski out because this garbage has no basis in science. Its number crunching with no basis in fact. Total garbage. Next ?
@StillTexan @RoderickBower ridiculous. Buy a since book numb nuts.
@StillTexan @RoderickBower The origin of life is a separate line of research from the modern theory of evolution which is limited to the diversity of life.
Second, you statement that the modern theory of evolution can't account for the "increase in information" is categorically wrong. Documented cases of gene duplication followed by mutation leading to novel features falsifies your statement. New "information" is not only well documented, but it is published in the literature and well known. Sorry for your ignorance, but your ignorance does not obviate facts. That is why good science education is so important.
@StillTexan @RoderickBower You're showing your stupidity again missy.
With All due respect, but this is not Mr. Marks field of study. He is a researcher in electrical engineering.
@Joseph_Harrison
So you think he doesn't understand mathematics?
Conversely, mathematics and specifically statistics and the want for "P-Values" confirm faulty research studies everyday. Until computers are able to operate on principles beyond the binary their ability to predict complex cosmological and earth-based evolutionary principles beyond a certain point will almost always hit an impasse. The order of our universe is entropy, and anything less than quantum computing capacity will never be able to completely model the ideas of Darwinian Evolution (Neo or otherwise) and the strange trajectories of its vehicle Natural Selection/Adaptation. As with Physics' current inability to account for a unified theory of everything, the simple parroting of ideas which are missing huge pieces of the puzzle as far as that reconciliation is concerned will again create a perception that the macro and micro are complete, its just that we have not found that missing link. Come on people, where are the INNOVATIVE THINKERS? Remember that science asks to answer all questions and to strive for something more perfect as epiphanies and new ideas unfold. Yet the patent ideas we have of both astrophysics and cosmology, as well as modern biology seem to work extremely well for our species. All good things and truths will be revealed in time; if our minds and observations are open to such.
@MaxamillionTrillyuns
I've learned not to trust p-values as much as I once did. Other than that, I think I mostly agree with what you said.
Next week: "Jury still out on law of gravity".
@TomField
Also next week: "Liberals don't understand mathematics."
@StillTexan @TomField What the hell does that asinine statement even mean?
Let's be careful here. Professor Marks is a profoundly brilliant guy across multiple areas. However, all that makes his support of Intelligent Design even more maddening.
1. Marks knows better than anyone here that lacking a math based system to define and explain evolution in no way invalidates evolution.
2. In order for Intelligent Design as normally foisted to be real/accurate everything from radio-carbon dating to red-shift in astronomy must - literally must be bogus.
@slim-whitman
1) I don't see that he's invalidating evolution. He's just saying that current models don't validate it. There's a difference.
2) You're a good guy but not every creationist believes the universe is 6,000 years old. Marks doesn't even mention that. I'm a creationist but believe the universe is some 14.5 billion years old and the earth is around 5 billion years old. Marks isn't promoting the bogus arguments about radiocarbon dating and such. If he does elsewhere, then I strongly disagree with him.
@StillTexan @slim-whitman
Good post.
1. I agree with your statement somewhat. However, I wish Marks would be more clear on this point as it seems to me he is, almost certainly with intent, offering cover to anti-evolutionists.
2. Forgive me, I meant to tag that comment towards new Earth creationists only.
All natural processes tend toward chaos (energy less available, loss of info or order) in accordance with second law.
Information, organization, laws of science, laws of logic, and life can only come from an intelligent living being (God). Energy and matter have none of these things unless first put there by God. Evolutionists have no means to get these immaterial things and; therefore, have no basis to use them to argue anything.
The odds of randomly getting life (a single simple cell) was calculated as 1 out of 10 raised to the power of 40,000. This is clearly impossible.
Michael Denton, an atheist, medical doctor, and molecular biologist, wrote a book called "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" (0-917561-05-8). He destroyed the theory of evolution in his specialty. He and also evolutionists Hoyle and Wickramasinghe {Evolution from Space] calculated these probabilities.
Confusion arises because there are two different types of evolutionary changes. One is both scientific and Biblical and the other is neither.
Limited changes are those within the created kind which is roughly the taxonomic classification of family. They require no new outside information and generally lose information. The changes utilize the genetic variation designed in by God. The change processes are natural selection, adaptation, and speciation which are directly scientifically observable, repeatable, and consistent with the Bible.
The general theory of evolution loved by atheists involves changes from one kind/family into another. They require new information from the outside which requires a natural process violating a law of science.Evolutionists proposed mechanisms are Neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibria. The proponents of each tell us scientifically why the other does not work. Changes like dinosaurs into birds are speculative beliefs, have no evidence in the fossil record, and have never been directly observed which puts them outside the traditional definition of science. They violate the Biblical statement that everything reproduces after its own kind.
@Bob_Lemke1 Evolution could be completely debunked 100%, that still wouldn't give a speck of proof for the magic sky fairy.
@Bob_Lemke1
Bob you are probably a nice guy and it's not my place to tell you what to believe or not to believe. However, I simply cannot stand your first argument above.
1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, we can argue whether the only closed system out there is the universe itself another time.
2. Essentially every complex living organism on the planet, at least over the short and medium terms, uses heat/sunlight, nutrients, water etc. to become more complex AND maintain proper order through maturity.
3. Ergo the things out there that evolutionists believe are evolving are not bound by The 2nd Law as framed by creationists in any way.
You as a know nothing when it comes to the life sciences, like many so-called biology schooled scientists, MD's or otherwise lack a basic understanding of genetics. PROOF of Evolution is the FACT that all genes are interchangeable amongst species. Understand this and you will understand how scientists have "turned" on latent dinosaur genes in chickens wherein their chicken legs developed into dinosaur legs. Look it up. Certain fish genes are "transgenically" placed in GMO bananas to increase their shelf life. Your religious ideas are not even hypotheses let alone fact-strewed, reproducible theory. Look for knowledge yourself and stop being lazy. Quit walking around everyday so sure that your half fantasies and factless beliefs are whole truths. It's asinine and life is short. Don't go to the grave as another contrarian, ignorant, imbecilic Average Savage.
@MaxamillionTrillyuns
I don't necessarily disagree with your larger conclusions, However, there are only 4 different nucleotides in both DNA and RNA. One could easily use that to argue the creationist viewpoint.
I'm a devout Christian and an old-earth creationist. However, the creation story is poetic and primarily talks about the who, not the how or when. I'm one of those who believes that the Bible supports the idea of an old universe and earth.
I have no problem with evolution. I believe that it's true. Chickens are dinosaurs, as you noted.
I do have problems with abiogenesis, the increasing complexity of DNA and RNA, and events like the Cambrian explosion. That doesn't make me dumb, just realistic. Perhaps evolution can one day explain those things; today they mysteries.
How about we teach the kids about all the evil that organized religions have perpetuated over history and all the scientific facts that contradict the bible, then let them decide whether they want to accompany their parents to church on Sunday.
@Ralph_Phillips1
There are no scientific facts that contradict the Bible.
How about we teach children about all the evil that has been committed in the name of atheism, from the killing fields of Cambodia to Hitler?
@StillTexan @Ralph_Phillips1
1. Pol Pot - it's complex but he was almost certainly a Buddhist - Buddhists don't believe in any god but they are certainly not atheists either.
2. Hitler - as complex as above - Hitler grew up a Catholic and all across the 1930s and early 40s made speech after speech decrying atheism. Early NASDP platforms included "Positive Christianity" as planks.
It appears Hitler swore off religion later in his tenure but this was long after establishing himself as one of history's greatest scumbags.
Visit a good museum and see the evidence of evolution. Visit a creationist museum for a good laugh, people riding on dinosaurs etc.
To creationist, The Flintstones is a documentary.
@Carroll_D_Hanks
To young earth creationists, yes. For the many, many of us old earth creationists, the creationist museums are an embarrassment. I'm a creationist, but the creation story in the Bible is short, poetic, and focuses on the who, not the how or when.
I have no religious objections against evolution. It's a fact that new species are created through evolution. However, the current model of humans evolving from slime mold has problems. Maybe these problems will be solved in the future.
@StillTexan @Carroll_D_Hanks Really, there's a current model of humans evolving from slime molds? What problems does it have?
@StillTexan @Carroll_D_Hanks You need to stop conflating abiogenesis and TToE. You have done so in several comments.
You and others hold TToE to a standard that abiogenesis must be explained. Physics, geology, chemistry and other life science have no such burden.
If the simulation results do not agree with the observed facts of evolution then the simulation is faulty, not the facts.
This op-ed is an exercise in meaningless babble.
Creationism must wear ever-evolving masks to evade ridicule!
"We can't develop a coding model that replicates evolution" --> Intelligent Design must be real
Am I getting the gist of the argument?
Sad!