History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Design ambiguities

February 28th, 2008 · No Comments

comment from author of “Save Our Selves from Science Gone Wrong”, at self-evolved.com

Shaun Johnston said,

February 28, 2008 at 11:05 am · Edit

If Miller’s take on evolution becomes adopted, then what is one say about science’s previous refusal to admit there’s design in nature? “It’s because we’ve changed what “design” means”? “We were mistaken about there being no design”?

The timing is perfect. “Expelled…” looms, and science backpedals. “Ok, we’ll agree there’s design, now it’s OK to say so. See, we’re not suppressing anything”

Wait for the other shoe to drop. “And the source of the design is…” Natural selection.

Except, natural selection doesn’t design anything, it’s mutation that comes up with novelty, which natural selection then whittles into design.

Except, mutation doesn’t work. Supposely, what mutates has to be a gene with neutral effect, or creatures with the mutated genes gets rejected. A neutral gene has to mutate, and stays neutral. Then natural selection can work on it to turn it into a good gene. But why does it need mutation for that? If the mutated neutral gene can be “improved,” so can the neutral gene without being mutated. If there’s a mechanism for “improving” genes, it will work on genes whether they’re mutated or not. If there a mechanism that can “improve” neutral genes, it won’t on mutated genes preferentially over un-mutated genes.

So, a little late, but better late than never, science will have to come up with a better source of design than natural selection plus mutation.

For an example of an alternative scientific mechanism of evolution, see my book “Save Our Selves from Science Gone Wrong” or visit evolvedself.com. I’m a science writer. No creationism here.

Tags: Evolution

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment