Subject: God and beetles
Date: 17 Nov 1999 23:46:11 GMT
From: Chris Ho-Stuart <
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
I’m going to try and answer in a small way
some issues which have been raised concerning
bombardier beetles in the “Job and
Dinosaur” thread, but hopefully in such a
way that we can drop the evolution/creationism
matter in short order and perhaps focus on some
matters of more direct relevance to the group.
The bombardier beetle is indeed remarkable.
There are a number of species of beetle which use
an explosive reaction to generate a hot jet of
irritating chemicals, for use as a defence
mechanism. Details of the spray have been
described elsewhere, by ur32212451.
The inference which people have drawn from this
appears to be that the bombardier beetle’s
defence mechanism is a problem for evolution, and
thus serves as evidence that evolutionary theory
is flawed. The term “irreducibly complex”
has been used by ur32212451, and Troy has made the
closely related observation that since all
chemicals involved are essential to the process,
they must have developed simultaneously, which is
not credible by evolution.
I propose to do the following.
(1)
Explain why scientists do not consider the
bombardier beetle to be a problem for evolution;
despite the above observations. I don’t want
to pursue this topic at length, since it relates
simply to the business of science and the
credibility one particular scientific criticism.
Any relation to the topic of this group is pretty
indirect.
(2)
Reflect on the theological implications of
alternative origins for the beetle’s defensive
mechanism.
(3)
Ask a question about the nature of God’s
creative activity, as it is understood by those who
see evolution as a denial of God’s role in
creation of the beetle. This is the major part of
my post.
(4)
Close with a relevant joke. Jokes help us regain
perspective, and I don’t think anyone will be
offended by this one. :-)
1.
Is the beetle a problem for evolution?
-----------------------------------------
Not particularly, except in the usual sense that we
don’t yet know all there is to know about its
ancestry.
Irreducible complexity is not really relevant; nor
is the observation that there are many parts to the
beetle’s defence mechanism which must all work
together for the spray to be effective. The notion
of irreducible complexity refers to a complex system
which could not meets its function if any one part
is removed. The implication is usually that it cannot
have been formed gradually by addition of parts.
The major defect with this criticism is that it
ignores actual evolutionary processes, which almost
never correspond simply to successive addition of
parts, and it ignores the fact that over time a system
may serve different functions. This last point is a
killer. Evolutionary development of organs or systems
nearly always involves a change in function as well
as a change in the system itself.
With respect to the bombardier beetle, it actually
fits very well into the standard evolutionary
paradigm. The chemicals involved do not have to
arise simultaneously. In fact, all of the chemicals
required for the bombardier spray are observed to
occur already in other beetles, for other purposes.
A plausible scenario for gradual co-option of the
various chemicals into defensive secretions has been
identified in the talk.origins FAQ on the subject.
Many critics speak of an “inhibitor”; a
chemical which the beetle uses to prevent the
reaction from occurring when not needed. To the best
of my knowledge, this is simply misinformation. No
such inhibitor has ever been identified-even by those
who assert it is required. The truth is that the
beetle does just the opposite, using a catalyst to
speed up the reactions when needed.
The proposed series of gradual steps is speculative,
to be sure; but it suffices to show why the
irreducible complexity argument is not a valid
criticism. It is a fascinating question to identify
the actual changes in beetle lineage leading to the
bombardier beetles; but the argument that such
changes are impossible or unlikely is fallacious.
Other aspects of the bombardier beetle also fit
very well into the standard evolutionary paradigm,
such as their taxonomy, and the existence of
vestigial non-functional wings in some species.
The defensive spray of these insects is indeed
fascinating and worthy of study; but it does not
present any special problems for evolutionary theory;
nor is it suggestive of a need for any new
evolutionary mechanisms to bring about the observed
form.
My main source of information is the talk.origins
archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
on bombardier beetles. I suggest people interested
in the scientific issue look at this FAQ, or at
other mainstream references. If anyone can point to
specific errors in the FAQ, I would welcome the
feedback;
I do solicit and act on sensible criticisms of the
archive; and also make my own criticisms from time
to time, which does result in occasional changes
where warranted. However, since the archive is founded
on empirically based mainstream science; objections
need to be grounded in the same way.
2.
What kind of designer would create this mechanism?
-----------------------------------------------------
If the defensive spray was a deliberate designed
construction by a purposive intelligence, why was
it developed? And when?
Bombardier beetles are predators. Some species are
also parasitic; their larvae attach to the pupae of
other beetles, and slowly devour them as they grow.
The theological implications of assuming that life
forms were deliberately created with all their present
behaviours and adaptions by a purposive agent who
chose to give them all those behaviours and adaptions
are rather awkward.
3.
Is God your creator?
-----------------------
It seems to me that those who assert evolution is in
conflict with the notion of a purposive creator need
to consider-is God actually MY creator? Or did God
just create humanity in the past and what happens
since is driven by natural processes?
I am an individual, with certain characteristics
(slim, buck teeth, aptitude for mathematical logic,
tendency to need to go to the toilet more than most
folk, etc, etc).
Is this all just happenstance? Or can I sensibly call
myself a creation of God as well? If I personally am
a creation of God, is this in conflict with the
observations of embryological development and genetics
which lead to my physical bodily form?
My brother-in-law recently had a new baby daughter.
We all think she is beautiful; but since she is
Chinese we were not expecting a blonde. Is someone
is a blonde, is that God’s creative action or
something else?
If it is something else-then what is God’s
involvement with ME personally as a creator?
I can think of several alternatives:
(1)
God created generalized body forms in the past.
Since then, individual body forms are the result of
natural process which God set in place. God’s
involvement with his creation is no longer creative
in this sense, and I as an individual am formed by
natural processes;
God’s creative role with me as an individual
is indirect.
(2)
God’s creative involvement pervades all of
creation so deeply and so subtly that there is no
point separating out natural processes from
supernatural processes. God is active though all
processes, and is thus my personal creator also.
(3)
There is no willful conscious creative agent
involved at any point in establishing my bodily
form (excepting my hairdresser and like folk).
I’m frankly with position 3; but I’m not
trying to persuade people to adopt that view. The
other two positions I also think are consistent.
I’m sure others could express a range of further
notions.
My main point is that biological evolution is not in
conflict with any of these views. If we put God’s
major creative act in the past, then there should be
no problem moving back past even the origins of life
itself. If we see God’s creative activity in
present day natural processes, then there should be
no problem seeing that also in the natural processes
of evolution.
The problem with evolution is not a conflict with God
as creator.
It is a conflict with one common way of reading Genesis.
Evolution is in conflict with literal interpretation
of the Genesis creation accounts as historical. This
is understood. If people choose to reject evolution
because it conflicts with their understanding of the
bible, that is fine by me.
Evolution is also periodically claimed to be in
conflict with good sense or with empirical evidence.
The bombardier beetle is cited as a case in point;
although as a criticism it fails badly.
Of course the biblical literalists would like to find
a good reason for discrediting evolution without
presuming their particular interpretation and faith
in the bible. This is understandable. But the attempt
to discredit evolution on its own terms in this way
is a debate for science. I think it is off topic here,
frankly. I often respond when such criticism is brought
up, as I have done here; and I beg the indulgence of
the group.
I also caution those who rely on the works of so-called
scientific creationists to bolster what is essentially
a position on faith and the bible. If you prefer to
trust the bible, fine. If you prefer to trust science,
and rely on the scientific creationists as exponents
of good science, then you are setting yourself up for
a fall.
4.
The closing joke.
--------------------
The following extracted from usenet; posted by Ken Cox.
God: And here’s the next species, one I’m
particularly proud of...
Adam: Beetle.
God: Excellent. Now here’s another...
Adam: Beetle.
God: No, you just named the last one “beetle”.
This one is quite different-look at the pattern on
the wing cases, and the shape of the antennae...
Adam: Beetle.
God: Well, OK, though they certainly look different
to Me. Now,the next species is-
Adam: Beetle.
Excerpt from “The *Real* Reason for the Fall”
Keep smiling-Chris Ho-Stuart
--
http://www.fit.qut.edu.au/~hostuart/
