Transcript Scientific Method

Genesis 1:26
26 And God said, Let us make man in
our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl
of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon
the earth.
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Genetics, Faith
and Theory
Timothy G. Standish, Ph. D.
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
What is Science?
The whole of science is
nothing more than the
refinement of everyday
thinking.
Albert Einstein
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
What is Science?
 “Sci”
= Knowledge “ence” = The
condition of
 Explanation of natural phenomena
through observation and
experimentation
 A method of gaining knowledge (the
scientific method)
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
The Scientific Method
The Scientific method relies on two types of
reasoning:
 Inductive reasoning - Drawing generalized
conclusions from data. This type of reasoning is
used when coming up with a theory
 Deductive reasoning - Elimination of possibilities
until only one or a very few remain. Hypotheses
are testable statements that must be true if a theory
is true, thus if the hypothesis is not true, the theory
can be deducted from the set of possible theories.

©2004 Timothy G. Standish
The Scientific Method
Theory
Beliefs
Data
Hypothesis
Test
(Experiment)
The Scientific Method
Does Not Always Provide
Definitive Answers
Error
Present
Science
Truth
Data
Old
Theory
Time
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
A Recent Example of Reevaluation
Egg
Nucleus
Acrosome
Nucleus
Middle piece
Mitochondria
Sperm
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
A Recent Example of Reevaluation
Egg
Nucleus
Sperm
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
A Recent Example of Reevaluation
Egg
Nucleus
Sperm
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
A Recent Example of Reevaluation
Egg
Nucleus
Sperm
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
A Recent Example of Reevaluation
Egg
Nucleus
No sperm
mitochondria appear
to enter the egg, thus
no sperm mtDNA
enters the egg, thus
only the mother
provides mtDNA to
her offspring.
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
A Recent Example of Reevaluation
 Awadalla
et al. have shown evidence of
genetic recombination in human and
chimpanzee mitochondria
 This seems to indicate that paternal (sperm)
mtDNA must somehow get in and recombine
with maternal (egg) mtDNA
 “There is a cottage industry of making gene
trees in anthropology and then interpreting
them. This paper will invalidate most of that.”
(H. Harpending, a U. of Utah anthropologist)
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Understanding Science
Scientists must understand the difference
between facts (data) and interpretation (theory)
 Fact – 99 % of the proteins produced by humans
appear to be about the same as those found in
mice
 Interpretation 1 - Mice and humans share a
common ancestor
 Interpretation 2 - Mice and humans share a
common Designer
 Most data are open to multiple interpretations
 Theory ≠ Fact

©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Data Then Theory
“It is a capital mistake to
theorize before one has data.
Insensibly one begins to twist
facts to suit theories, instead
of theories to fit facts”
Sherlock Holmes
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Ockham’s Razor:
The law of economy or parsimony





Data commonly suggests a number of different theories,
some of which are more complicated than others
Scientists generally choose the most simple theory or
explanation of data as the most probably true
This preference for the most simple theory is called
Ockham’s Razor, the law of economy or parsimony
William of Ockham was a 14th century monk who is
supposed to have stated “non sunt multiplicanda entia
praeter necessitatem” (entities are not to be multiplied
beyond necessity)
Others, including Aristotle, invoked this principle before
Ockham, but he made remarkably sharp use of the “razor”
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Asking The Right Questions
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Reductionism
Organisms are too complex to study as a whole, so
biologists break them down to determine how their
components work. Knowing each part’s workings
gives insight on the whole organism.
 Understanding the digestive system requires
studying the digestive organs. Understanding the
esophagus, stomach and intestines helps us
understand the system.
 Cells, the fundamental units of life, are understood
in light of the biochemicals (proteins, lipids,
carbohydrates etc.) from which they are made.
 Biochemicals are coded for ultimately through DNA

©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Emergent Properties
Biological systems are more than the sum of their
parts, the combination of parts produce “emergent”
properties present only because of the combination
and not intrinsic to any single part.
 A wheel is not a transportation device, neither is a
bicycle frame, but put together with a few other
parts they become a bicycle.
 If made only of contracting ventricles, the heart
would not pump blood. Likewise valves alone could
not move blood. The combined work of ventricles
and valves moves blood through the heart and out to
the body.

©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Biologist’s Dilemma
 Life
is too complex to study as a whole, thus
reductionism is needed to simplify biological
systems to the point they can be understood
 The “simple” components that make up living
things have emergent properties present only
when they are combined together.
 Thus, understanding how the components
work does not necessarily tell us how the
organism works.
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Ernst Haeckel
One of Darwin’s greatest promoters
 Like all who do not believe there was
a creator, believed in spontaneous

generation
– “The Monera (for instance, chromacea and
bacteria), which consist only of this primitive protoplasm,
and which arise by spontaneous generation from these
inorganic nitrocarbonates, may thus have entered upon the
same course of evolution on many other planets . . .”
– “First simple monera are formed by spontaneous
generation, and from these arise unicellular protists . . .”
* Both quotes are from The Riddle of the Universe at the close of the Nineteenth Century by
Haeckel.
©2004 Timothy G. Standish

Spontaneous Generation
Two reasons Haeckel had faith in spontaneous
generation:
– Atheistic beliefs-Discounting the possibility of a Creator
– Misunderstanding cell’s complexity-He observed
emergent properties, not the complex parts that combined
to produce them.

He held to these beliefs despite the work of:
–
–
–
–

Francisco Redi (mid 1600s)
Abbe Spallanzani
Theodor Schwann and Franz Schulze (1854)
Louis Pasteur (1861)
All of whom disproved spontaneous generation
experimentally
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
 Our
Reductionism Again
understanding of cells at the molecular
level reveals a world of complexity
unimagined by Haeckel and others of his age.
 Cells are not “primitive protoplasm,” but a
myriad of complex molecular machines each
of which is immensely unlikely to have come
about spontaneously.
 Haeckel’s naive faith in spontaneous
generation now seems laughable in the light of
knowledge generated by scientists practicing
reductionism.
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Behe’s Insight
When we look at the protein machines that run cells,
there is a point at which no parts can be removed
while still having a functioning machine. Michael
Behe called these machines “irreducibly complex.”
 Natural selection does not provide a plausible
mechanism to get from nothing to the collection of
parts necessary to run anyone of a number of protein
machines needed to have a living cell

Staple
Trigger
Hammer
Board
Cheese
Bait holder
Spring
Faith
 Faith
is not inconsistent with science if it
exhibits the following characteristics:
– Is not irrational
– Is consistent with data, but differs from
theory in that it does not rely on data
 Faith
in a Creator
– Is defined by revelation not experimentation
– Is experienced
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Faith and Theory
Faith in a theory may be exposed as irrational
belief if it is shown to be inconsistent with data.
 Being inconsistent with a theory does not make
faith irrational.
 Faith in a flawed theory may lead to further
flawed beliefs
 Flawed beliefs may also result from poor
interpretation of ones faith or theory
 Much of the perceived conflict between faith and
science results from confusion about these four
points

©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Haeckel’s Faith
 Haeckel’s
belief in spontaneous
generation can be traced to:
1 Faith in a flawed theory - There is no
Creator
2 Poor interpretation of the theory of
natural selection proposed by Darwin
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Christian Faith
 The
apostle Paul recommended to the
Ephesian Christians:
 Above all, taking the shield of faith,
wherewith ye shall be able to quench all
the fiery darts of the wicked.
Ephesians 6:16
 Faith in a Creator can serve as a
powerful shield against
misinterpretation of nature.
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Science Faith and Data
 Christian
scientists must be aware that
their faith colors how they interpret data.
 They must be on constant guard against
misapplication of faith in a Creator
 Misinterpretation of revelation is as easy
as misinterpretation of data
 Faith in a Creator must be consistent
with data collected when studying His
creation.
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
 Genetics
Genetics
may be the ultimate exercise in
reductionism by biologists.
 Genes are life’s blue print. All proteins are
defined by genes, and all other
macromolecules are made by proteins.
 All emergent properties are ultimately defined
by genes
 Faith in the Creator of organisms must be
consistent with what is known about the genes
defining plants, animals and microorganisms.
©2004 Timothy G. Standish
Genetics and the Creator
Genes are at the foundation of evolutionary theory.
Genes define the organism, and thus the variation on
which natural selection can work.
 Over the next few weeks of FB, think about the
following two questions relating to genetics, faith
and evolutionary theory:
1 Does evolutionary theory or faith in a Creator allow
us to make better predictions about the genetic
material?
2 Does the theory of natural selection or faith in a
Creator better account for the nature of the genetic
code?

©2004 Timothy G. Standish
©2004 Timothy G. Standish