Last week Governor Perry from Texas announced he’ll be running for President. Days after the announcement, he makes a statement about being against evolution and is an intelligent design proponent. This is a highly unusual statement, given the fact that, the United States has been in a recession since 2008. People are still loosing jobs or being being laid off at an alarming rate. Nevertheless, this issue always draws a lot of media attention and debate. Perhaps this is why he brought it up.
Richard Dawkins, known for his book, “God Delusion” weighed in on Governor Perry’s statement by quoting him this way which is supposed to be a copy from the Washington Post…
“Texas governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that evolution is ”just a theory” with “gaps” and that in Texas they teach “both creationism and evolution.” Perry later added “God is how we got here.” According to a 2009 Gallup study , only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should schools teach it as a mere “theory”? Why is evolution so threatening to religion?”
There is a typo in this quote that should be corrected. Public schools in Texas do not teach both creationism and evolution, they only teach evolution. What Perry did say was this…
“I am a firm believer in Intelligent Design as a matter of faith and intellect, and I believe it should be presented in schools alongside the theories of evolution.”
So Richard Dawkins attacks Governor Perry educational background and character, which is the norm for him but so childish then proceeds to tell him evolution is a fact, and the tree of life hypothesis is evidence of that. Since the modern intelligent design movement is a promoter of a common ancestor, but not in the Darwinian way, they come to Perry’s defense and attack Dawkins stance with other evolutionary biologists who reject the tree of life hypothesis for something else within the framework of evolution because it has been falsified so many times, they can no longer force the data into its explanation.
“Unknown to Darwin, microbes use two mechanisms of natural variation that disobey the rules of tree-like evolution: lateral gene transfer and endosymbiosis” -Nature 2004.
Random biological variation according to evolution eventually produces all kinds of biological novelties. However, their proposal of biological variation comes with a cost rather than with a reward like evolution requires. For example, horizontal gene transfer is when genetic material gets transferred between individuals rather than vertically between generations. Recent studies have found that attempts to simulate the evolution of the genetic code via traditional evolutionary mechanisms leads to utter failure.
One study as recently as last year, states…“Starting with a random initial population of codes being used by different organisms—all using the same DNA bases but with different associations of codons and amino acids—they first explored how the code might evolve in ordinary Darwinian evolution. While the ability of the code to withstand errors improves with time, they found that the results were inconsistent with the pattern we actually see in two ways.“
“First, the code never became shared among all organisms—a number of distinct codes remained in use no matter how long the team ran their simulations. Second, in none of their runs did any of the codes evolve to reach the optimal structure of the actual code. “With vertical, Darwinian evolution,” says Goldenfeld, “we found that the code evolution gets stuck and does not find the true optimum.”
Nothing in biology obtains clarity in light of evolution, only mystery on top of mystery which is perceived as observational facts by inventing a storyline for it, which makes it the only theory in science without experimental evidence. The tree of life hypothesis does not prove evolution as a fact like Richard Dawkins tries to suggest.
Indeed, there are many gaps, and many of these gaps are filled with a lot of speculation. I respectfully disagree with Governor’s Perry’s idea even though I agree, God is the designer of nature. It’s highly unlikely creationism would be treated fairly, rather than having public schools focus on where it came from, focus on how nature works and let students decide where it came from like God or evolution!