“Yes I checked out Kenneth Miller’s clip – fascinating . . . but why take away only 40 proteins? To my mind the fact that certain combinations are common to different creatures points to a common design rather than common ancestry.”

To the first, 40 is the case for that particular complex, others have different subsets: there is no “choosing” of “only 40″, etc.

To the second, the explanation is simple, but it is not easy to see it unless you work through some examples yourself: because there are (random) changes between the proteins, and the genes encoding them, that are poorly explained by them having all species independently start with the same protein then have them independently diverged “in parallel” (as would be the case in “by design”), but are readily explained if the proteins diverged from a common ancestor by descent (as would be the case in evolution by common descent). You won’t see this unless you construct some evolutionary trees and try different models and compare them.

You can actually see the same thing without “mutations” by simply looking at what types of protein (or their genes) are present in different species. Again, they are readily explained by evolution by common descent, but very poorly “by design”.

(When I say “very poorly” here, I’m being polite.)

Thirdly, referring to further down in your post, Darwin’s theory isn’t a theory of “for how it all began”, but of how other species arise from those already in existence.

There are a number of individuals who, for various reasons, include how life arose from organic matter, but that’s definitely not true of Darwin’s theory, nor is it true of what is usually known as the “modern synthesis” of evolution. (Which is actually not so modern either– its over 50 years old.)

The origin of the universe is universally–pun intended!–considered a separate issue. Some religious people who insist on telling scientists how to do their business, aside of course…

…until Darwin’s conjecture can account for how it all began I shan’t be too interested…

Then you’ll never be too interested because a theory on how living forms alter over the generations doesn’t try to account for abiogenesis. And, quite frankly, I’m amazed that you can even function on a day-to-day basis if that is your criteria for acceptance of a scientific theory.

But it’s not is it?

Perhaps this is because this particular theory directly contradicts how you have interpreted the creation story in the Bible? Many of your ideological forebearers held out until their deaths against the scientific notion that the Earth was, in fact, not literally fixed in it’s place (as per an interpretation of the Psalms) for what I imagine are the same convoluted logical reasons you are holding out on the simple observation that life evolves.

But, I assume that you happily believe that the Earth orbits the sun (or is that too great an assumption?) and I am content in the knowledge that new generations of magical thinkers will find a way to adjust their interpretations of the Bible to allow for observable reality with regard to evolution in the same way you have with heliocentrism. It’s a different kind of evolution but it’s evolution all the same. Your belief system will have to adapt or it will eventually go extinct. Perhaps one day our descendants will visit their museums and fondly look at the creationism exhibits within the “extinct cultural beliefs” section.

“And Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey – what kind of failure by the religious leaders of their day is that?” - what do you mean by this? Are you implying that Darwin should not be honoured by his country for his scientific discoveries? Or are you implying that religious leaders should somehow control how this honour is given?

The fact is that Westminster Abbey belongs to the whole country. And cultural heritages like that are heritages for the whole people.

We have all inherited these cultural icons from the past – whatever our religious beliefs.

In the past almost everybody had theistic beliefs – in many ways they had no choice. They certainly didn’t have alternative knowledge. Now we do. We now have a pluralistic society with a number on religious and non-religious beliefs. But we all inherit that culture from the past – it is our culture even though we may no longer accept the beliefs expressed in that old culture.

Are you going to deny me my rights to that culture just because my beliefs are non-theist? In the weekend I listened to Verdi’s Requium. Should I have been prevented from doing this because the music is considered sacred? Should Verdi have been prevented from writing the music because he was non-theist?

Are you, or the religious leaders of the day, going to select who inherits our common cultural heritage?

Westminster Abbey is entirely appropriate for Darwin’s grave. Especially as it is also the final resting place of other great British scientific and cultural personalities.

Of course we all look at life from a given standpoint and I still have to agree with earlier comments that until Darwin’s conjecture can account for how it all began I shan’t be too interested since I clearly believe that a very intelligent designer brought about intelligent life and keeps it going.

As a non-sequitur, that’s just spectacular! Similarly, you should avoid saying you’re a Christian until the Bible can explain the Marfa Lights, string theory, and the designated hitter rule! You clearly can’t believe in an intelligent designer until such things are laid out, in scripture.

Darwin’s theory is a theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection. Abiogenesis is not a necessary prerequisite, and is not part of the theory at all.

The God I worship has revealed himself to his creation, explained how he did it and does, yes does, want a close relationship with his creation.

Lucky you. We Christians are stuck with mystery — sweet mystery, but mystery nevertheless. Are you Scientologist? Zoroastrian? I must admit I’m unaware of any faith where the claim is made that the creator has explained how creation was done. Just what faith are you?

And Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey – what kind of failure by the religious leaders of their day is that?

They wanted to pay homage to someone who had penetrated so much of the mystery of God’s creation. Darwin is interred a few feet from Isaac Newton, who is blamed by some nonthinkers for taking the angels out of the heavens — the church fathers recognized that scientific achievement cannot be contrary to the faith if, as Christians do, one believes God to be the creator, and creation to accurately manifest God’s intentions.

No failure by the religious leaders at all. Have you ever studied Christianity? I’m sure I can find you a study group in your town, if you’d care to look into the faith.

Of course there are Christians the world over who believe in evolution. Most have never tried to suss it out – after all, belief in origins is not crucial to salvation but for me their God is too small.

Quite to the contrary, some, as in the Catholic Church, have spent hundreds of years trying to figure out the cosmos. There’s a session set with the Pope later this year where Stephen Hawking and a number of other bright lights in cosmology, physics, biology and other sciences will spend some time discussing science. The Pope, and the Prophet Seer and Revelator of the Latter-day Saints, and the moderator of the Methodists, and the assemblies of the Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, and most other sects, understand that science does not contradict scripture and in no way denies God.

Science is a way of increasing understanding. With all thy getting, get Wisdom, the Holy Spirit advises. Christians willingly pursue it.

Hi Ken,
I did look at Carlo Artieri’s review of “The case for a Creator” he certainly pins his colours to the mast before his totally unbiased comments.

Of course we all look at life from a given standpoint and I still have to agree with earlier comments that until Darwin’s conjecture can account for how it all began I shan’t be too interested since I clearly believe that a very intelligent designer brought about intelligent life and keeps it going.

The God I worship has revealed himself to his creation, explained how he did it and does, yes does, want a close relationship with his creation. And Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey – what kind of failure by the religious leaders of their day is that?

Of course there are Christians the world over who believe in evolution. Most have never tried to suss it out – after all, belief in origins is not crucial to salvation but for me their God is too small.

Eric (if you’re still here) you might be interested in a blog which is reviewing Strobel’s book The Case for a Creator. The author is Carlo Artieri a Canadian biologist. He will probably deal with your issues case by case.

Yea thats all fine and good. But it seems like the attitude is “well science prooved it so there must be no God”. Although the existence of God can not ever really truly be disproved/proved. Some say science just reinforces God’s awe.

That’s an interesting misperception. Most of the people who make that claim, that science says there is not God, are preachers. Scientists rarely discuss the issue among themselves, and there is not a single research paper I’ve ever found that makes the claim. If one were to read research papers, one would not encounter a claim that denies God.

So, why do preachers keep repeating that old canard? Repeated often enough, a lie gains credence.

Ironic, no? Preachers establish the claim that science says there is no God. Do they know what they’re doing?

One more chunk of evidence of the vacuity, and harm, of creationism.

Yea,I’m not saying, or ever said, that I think evolution in bunk from a-z. There are a few aspects of the macro part of it that I think there’s a “let’s make the evidence fit our theory” type of thing going on.
I think there are things that happened so long ago that no one can ever really know what happened.