Blogging Dawkins – Chapter 8

As Dawkins explains in it’s opening, the title of chapter 8 is in reference to an alleged encounter between J.B.S. Haldane and an evolution denier, just after Haldane delivered a public lecture. Haldane was an early geneticist and evolutionary biologist, considered a leading architect of modern evolutionary theory. Haldane responded to the evolution denier’s incredulity at the unguided development of complex bodies from simple cells over millions of years by stating, “But madam, you did it yourself. And it only took you nine months.”

The knee-jerk reply to such a  comparison between evolution and embryology, is that an embryo is very much guided by the “instructions” found in DNA. This is simply untrue in a very important sense, and Dawkins takes time to explain why.

The temptation to compare living things to artifacts produced by living things is great, as with Paley’s famous Watchmaker argument. The appearance of design, so say creationists, is the signature of a designer. But there are many complex things that occur in nature which have no architect, no intent, no plan. Here Dawkins discusses top-down versus bottom-up design. Top-down design begins with a plan, a final product in mind, and instructions follow a path which leads to this final product. This is how truly designed artifacts are built, such as watches and cathedrals. But in bottom-up design there is no plan- there are processes at work, guided only by simple, local rules. There used to be a myth that some medieval European cathedrals were built without architecture- that carpenters and masons came together and each worked their own trade, until finally a cathedral emerged. This would be an example of bottom-up design.

Of course the cathedral example of bottom-up design seems absurd, but this very method is responsible for insect nests and embryos. This is counterintuitive to what we know about creation and design, but it is in fact what is observed in the development of many artifacts of nature. Dawkins uses a familiar phenomenon to illustrate this bottom-up organization: the spectacular flocking patterns of starlings. We have all seen footage of these birds moving through the air in huge numbers, darting and wheeling as if their dance was choreographed and rehearsed. But of course their is no choreography, no intention, no top-down design. These birds are only following local rules, and the organization, structure and coordination- the “dance”- emerges as a by-product of this process.

Dawkins reviews a few analogies for embryology (a recipe, sculpting, tailoring, factory-line assembly) and discusses why these do not analogize well the process. Dawkins arrives at his favored analogy among human contruction techniques: origami. When one creates origami, it is generally by following one step at a time a set of rules which seem to have no connection with the end product- and this is perhaps the most fascinating feature of origami. Through simple steps, and without any knowledge of what or how each step contributes to the end product, one can create ornate artifacts.

As with any analogy, the origami analogy has it’s shortcomings and is not a perfect parallel to embryological development. Two things Dawkins mentions is the necessity of human hands for origami, and the fact that it has the same mass at every stage. In embryology, cells divide and add to the overall size of the embryo, and they fold automatically, all according to local rules. Dawkins provides a brief description of the process here, in his characteristically concise way which make his books worth reading: cells dividing an folding, genes influencing proteins and other genes, hormone mediators, and a cascade of these and numerous other effects which all follow simple rules that culminate in a complex embryo without the advantage of foresight or an end-product in mind.

I will not attempt to summarize the process. The mere existence of a natural, bottom-up design process and the complexity that emerges from it is strong evidence of the naturalistic explanation for how evolution occurs. We have learned of the time available for evolution to occur, the malleability of life forms, the evidence of gradual change over time, the observable effects of natural selection in present time, and it’s ability to produce novel features. Chapter 8 has shown us that a natural process is not only sufficient to explain evolution, but that such a process is at work in various current natural events, able to produce the spectacular complexity found in living embryos.

Up next, an exploration of plate tectonics in Chapter 9:  “Ark of the Continents”.

Blogging Dawkins – Chapter 7

From chapter 6 we gleaned a greater understanding of the ‘missing link’ fallacy, what is meant by transitional fossils, and a bit about the rich collection of fossils showing transitional phases of major speciation events.  Here in chapter 7 Dawkins explores the fossil evidence for human ancestry.

Darwin made a prediction about the fossil evidence, which is quoted by Dawkins here in chapter 7:

“In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some apelike creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point where the term ‘man’ ought to be used.”

In Darwin’s time, most of the regions that were promising beds of fossils for human ancestors had not been explored, and pre-human fossils were not available for study. He predicted that as older and older fossils were discovered, there would be a point where it was impossible to differentiate between ape and human specimens. Since Darwin’s time, many important fossil discoveries have been made that have shed much light on human ancestry. Unfortunately, in accordance with Darwin’s quote above, some of the fossils have become taxonomic nightmares.

Genetic evidence (which we will come to in a later chapter) shows that the split from our common ancestor with chimpanzees happened around 6 million years ago. If we split the difference and look at 3 million year-old fossils we get a sense of what Darwin predicted- fossils that could hardly be considered fully human nor fully ape.

All modern humans are Homo sapiens of the genus Homo. As we examine the fossil evidence moving backward through time, we meet a series of different species within the Homo genus- Homo neanderthalensis, Homo ergaster, and Homo habilis among them.  The more recent neanderthalensis is easily classified as human, and ergaster/erectus as well, although quite different from modern humans and walking the earth around 2 million years ago. Homo habilis stretches back to our 3 million year mark and poses the aforementioned taxonomic problem: how do we classify it? Anything slightly older has been generally classified into a different genus, Australopithecus (“southern ape”). But moving forward from Australopithecus, the line between ape and human is very fuzzy indeed- just as Darwin predicted. Early Homo fossils have sometimes been classified as Australopithecus for this very reason- they are neither ape nor human, but rather an intermediate form which will not fit squarely into our clumsy classification system.

Not all fossils that have been discovered are true ancestors of humans or chimpanzees; some are cousins, extinct branches of our family tree. Nevertheless, the various fossils tell the story of descent with modification and confirm the predictions of common ancestry. There will never be a complete collection to represent any one lineage, and there will always be contention over how to classify each specimen and where it fits into the family tree. But what is clear from the existing evidence is the pattern of descent with modification over millions of years, showing our Australopithecene ancestors evolving to walk upright and then a gradual increase in brain size and function, the hallmark of humanity. The fossil record has become more evidence for evolution.

Here again we should remember that the evidence did not necessarily have to be what it is- the fossil record could show humans appearing suddenly and remaining relatively unchanged through the present, for example. However, the fossil record as it exists demands an explanation, and evolution answers the call.

Though Dawkins provides more Latin nomenclature, chronology and alphanumeric specimen designations, I have left out much detail in favor of a more general summary. But I will end this summary as Dawkins ends the chapter, with a charge to “just go and look”. Lack of fossil evidence is a mantra of the creationist community, but the wealth of fossils are available in many museums and in high-resolution photos online- just go and look. While fossil evidence is not the most powerful evidence for evolution, it is still unequivocal and consistent- and fascinating. The fossils of our ancestors provide a glimpse into the past, to the slow change which, over time, lead to dramatic differences in the lives and abilities of our predecessors.

For our next line of evidence we will turn to embryology in chapter 8: “You Did it Yourself in Nine Months”

Blogging Dawkins – Chapter 6

It’s probably the most common accusation leveled against evolutionary theory, the infamous ‘missing link’ fallacy, and Dawkins takes a moment here in chapter 5 to set the facts straight. Here are some important points:

• The ‘missing link’ accusation is a fallacy because every fossil is an intermediate between something and something else. We can never have a complete collection of fossils showing the ancestry of life- evolution is gradual, so we would need literally billions of fossils to have a complete record of even a single animal ancestry.
• We are lucky to have any fossils at all- their formation is extremely rare. The absence of fossils does not constitute evidence against evolution, which leads to the next point:
• Even if the fossil evidence were scant (as it was in Darwin’s day) we would still have abundant enough evidence to confirm the fact of evolution (also true, but to a lesser extent, in Darwin’s day).
• Despite the rarity of fossil formation, we still have a huge amount of fossil evidence documenting a great deal of the evolution of life.

Dawkins further addresses some of the more ludicrous misunderstandings that arise unfortunately often. One such misunderstanding is the notion that we should see things like ‘crocoducks’ (half crocodile, half duck) and ‘fronkeys’ (half frog, half monkey). Another is the question of why, if we evolved from monkeys, there are still monkeys. These fallacies both fail to recognize that modern species do not derive from one another, but rather share common ancestors- monkeys and humans, for example, share a common ancestor that was more like a monkey than a human, but still not a monkey.

What these and other misunderstandings arise from is a notion Dawkins refers to as the Great Chain of Being. This is the ubiquitous notion that life exists on a sort of ladder, with humans at the top and the ‘lesser’ animals arranged below according to some rules of an imagined hierarchy. Of course we humans have the (perhaps) unique ability to contemplate our own existence, but- so what? Birds are highly evolved and far more adept than any other creature at doing bird things. Bacteria are also highly evolved and highly successful, far outnumbering most other living things. Even the panda which is nearing extinction is still at an advantage over most other things that have lived in the past, in that the panda exists currently- almost 100% of species that have lived are now currently extinct. So despite the illusion of a hierarchy among animals, we can rest assured that we are rather more like a circle of life.

Common misconceptions aside, there are valid inquiries into the fossil record of certain periods in evolution. We’ve already learned that the fossil record shows a consistent trend from simple to complex life, and Dawkins takes time here to discuss more specific fossil evidence demonstrating some major life transitions, such as the one from sea to land. Once again, both the existing fossil evidence and that which is continuously discovered follow the predictions of evolution- marine life early, followed by a variety of amphibious creatures, and eventually land-dwelling reptiles. Gradually reptiles take flight and eventually the evolution of birds, as well as the transition to mammalian life and other interesting transitions, such as the whale ancestor’s return to the sea.

Dawkins account leaves no doubt that the available fossil evidence confirms the predictions of evolution. My personal experience is that those who oppose evolution trumpet the 1912 Piltdown fraud while ignoring the rich fossil evidence. I struggled with summarizing Dawkins’ examples, so I’m instead recommending additional reading by those who wish to further understand fossil evidence. An excellent place to start is this FAQ at talkorigins.

Dawkins will look specifically at human evolution in the next chapter: “Missing Persons? Missing No Longer”.

Blogging Dawkins – Chapter 5

So far we’ve learned something about selection and the variation it is capable producing, and we’ve learned of the staggering amount of time available for evolution to occur. We’ve inferred a long history of evolution from the fossil record record, which provides a clear and (so far) flawlessly consistent gradient of forms from simple beginnings to the breathtaking complexity and diversity of late (the evidence for which we will return to). Dawkins now turns to the evidence that evolution is happening “Before Our Very Eyes”.

Although it is not part of the chapter, I want to forestall a certain common criticism before we start look at examples of observable evolution. The usual response to this type of evidence is that it is not ‘macro-evolution’ but rather ‘micro-evolution’ or adaptation, and therefore does not demonstrate the evolution of, say, reptiles to birds. This objection (which is, at this point in the book, still valid) is thoroughly refuted by several lines of evidence, as we shall see, so I will only point out here that common ancestry is a known, well-supported fact. The focus of such experimentation discussed in this chapter is to learn more about how it happens, not whether it happens.

Dawkins gives us several detailed examples of selection-driven evolution in action. For reasons that should be obvious, an organism’s rate of reproduction bears largely on how quickly evolutionary change can spread through the gene pool, so the most rapid real-time evolution would be observed in organisms which reproduce quickly. However, Dawkins begins with an example from some of the slowest reproducing animals with the longest generational turnover: elephants. Elephants have been observed to have an overall reduction in tusk size as a result of their being poached for ivory. Those elephants with smaller tusks were less likely to be killed, so smaller tusks slowly became more prevalent in the gene pool. This has been observed over a 25-year period, a miniscule blip on the geological time line made even smaller by the slow reproduction rate of elephants, yet selection still produces measurable results.

The next example, a lizard species that was introduced to a small islet near Croatia and left to adapt for nearly 40 years, documents a significant divergence from the original species. In a new environment isolated from the original population, the new lizard population evolved to consume a largely vegetarian diet, modifying both the head and digestive organs. The reproductive rate of the lizards is higher than that of the elephants, and therefore provides more opportunities (within the same time frame) for the trial-and-error of evolution.

While it is responsible for immense evolutionary change, the modification or co-option of an existing feature (like a smaller tusk or a modified gut) is somewhat different than evolving a new feature altogether. To actually observe the latter would require something with a very high rate of reproduction, a thorough experiment and sufficient time for new features to emerge. The grand example employed by Dawkins is an experiment performed by Richard Lenski and his colleagues at Michigan State University. The experiment is breathtaking in its scope and thoroughness, and Dawkins explores it at length. I can only offer a very general overview.

Beginning in 1988, Lenski divided a cloned population of the bacteria e. coli into twelve separate flasks and provided them with the warmth and nutrition needed to grow and multiply (which they do by asexual division). Every day a fraction of each population was drawn from the flask and placed into a new flask and given the same treatment. This treatment induces a daily population boom, with an average of about six or seven generations per flask per day. Lenski and his team have carried out this daily treatment for over twenty years so far, generating roughly 45,000 generations of bacteria. That is equivalent to around 1 million years of human evolution based on the number of generations- still a blink of time on a geological time scale, but enough to achieve some illuminating results.

Based on evolutionary assumptions, the prediction would be that these bacteria would become more efficient at exploiting the available nutrition, and that this mutation would eventually spread through the population, from flask to flask, until it was completely dominant. This happened in all twelve bacterial lines. Interestingly, the different bacterial lines ‘discovered’ different mutations for accomplishing this new efficiency! Another mutation that was common to all twelve lines was an increase in ‘body’ size- here again each population climbed different mutational steps to achieve the same thing.

These results are fascinating, but not surprising- they are the expectations of the experiment based on evolutionary assumptions. It would be more surprising (and detrimental to the case for evolution) if these improvements did not occur. But there was at least one development that was not anticipated, that was apparently less probable, and that offers very compelling evidence indeed. At around generation 33,000, one of the bacterial populations’ density increased over sixfold- this single line of bacteria was somehow able to survive on the same ration that all other lines were receiving, but with six times as many individuals. Every generation thereafter in this line maintained the increased population density while all other lines remained at the lower population average. What happened?

Well, to put it simply, the swollen population was made possible by evolution. There was citrate in the flasks, which the bacteria normally can not use. But through mutation and natural selection, this one bacterial line ‘discovered’ a way to use the citrate, therefore increasing the usability of the available nutrients and allowing a population boom. Fascinatingly, this was the result of several mutations working in tandem, some of which had to be present for the final mutation to have the effect of exploiting the citrate. This is unambiguous, stepwise, increasing complexity, evolution happening before our very eyes.

Now we know that evolution is happening, and that we can learn more about how through experimentation and observation. But we can’t directly observe the past- we need to rely on indirect data to understand what’s happened. Up next: Chapter 6 – ‘Missing Link? What Do You Mean “Missing”?’

Blogging Dawkins – Chapter 4

The process of selection, whether artificial or natural, has demonstrable power to change the bodies of plants and animals. This has been observed over the centuries, but how long has this process been in effect, and how do we know?

To measure it’s age, it would be most convenient if rock contained a clock that was zeroed when it was laid down- and that is precisely what happens in igneous rock. It would also be helpful to have a variety of these ‘zero-able’ clocks by which to cross-check for accuracy- and these are available as well. Dawkins presents a thorough and interesting review of the various natural clocks that are available, beginning with the clocks used to measure shorter time spans for archaeological purposes.

The first method explained is dendrochronology, which is a detailed record of tree rings compiled as far back as about 11,500 years. Basically, the “fingerprints” of tree rings can be overlapped back through time and used to determine the age of a piece of wood with near-perfect accuracy. This can be cross-checked with carbon-14 dating, another method used for measuring relatively shorter time spans.

Dawkins’ description of radioactive clocks and their role in determining ages cannot be done justice in this summary. Basically when an element decays, it’s atoms become other elements at an average, fixed rate.  The proportion of elements can be measured, and an age can be ascertained based on the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred. This is called an element’s half-life. For example, Carbon-14’s half-life is 5,730 years. That means that if you start with x amount of carbon-14, after 5,730 years half of the initial amount will have decayed into another element. After another 5,730 years, half of the remaining amount will have decayed, and so on.

There are elements with half-lives ranging from milliseconds to billions of years, providing ample cross-checking opportunities. The only way the dating method can work, however, is if the initial amount of any given element is known, and it can only be known of rock that has been formed relatively quickly, such as igneous rock, which appears throughout the geological column. Long before radiometric dating was developed, the different rock layers were identified and named, and their order was understood to occur as they were deposited- the oldest layers at the bottom and the youngest toward the top. These layers are the same all over the world, with minor exceptions where they have been disturbed. The order has long been known, but the age of the rocks was not known until the advent of radiometric dating.

With an error rate of +/-1%, radiometric dating confirms that geologic time stretches back thousands of millions of years- an incomprehensible period of time, far longer than it has taken to produce adaptations in nature and the domestication of plants and animals. This satisfies the question raised at the end of chapter 3. We know evolution occurs, and we now know that it has had many millions of years to produce the diversity of features we see at present.

Now Dawkins brings us to the crux of the matter, the evidence in all of this, that evolution has occurred. If we start with the bottom layers of rock, the oldest layers, and work our way forward, what should we expect to see if evolution has occurred? We should expect to see life progress in a sensible fashion from simple to more complex. We should also expect that certain animals, for example mammals, would literally never appear in the older layers of strata, because in the case of mammals we presume that they have evolved from a non-mammalian ancestor. These expectations have never been disappointed, not once. This is powerful evidence that evolution has occurred.

Dawkins makes an important overarching point throughout the book- the known state of affairs does not necessarily have to be so. The example of mammal fossils literally never occurring in the oldest strata is a case in point. The physical evidence could appear any number of different ways pointing to quite different explanations, but it simply does not. As we learned in chapter 2, the facts are the framework upon which the theory rests, and the facts point very unambiguously toward thousands of millions of years of life evolving.

Up next: Chapter 5 – Before Our Very Eyes

 

Blogging Dawkins – Chapter 3

In chapter two we learned that body plans were not fixed, and that through selective breeding the human eye can manipulate living things to exhibit various new characteristics. But this requires at least some foresight, some conscious plan on the part of humans. Can this be achieved without foresight through purely natural processes?

Dawkins begins answering this question by turning to the plant world, where a form of domestication takes place. Many plants have worked out a system wherein they exchange nectar for the delivery of pollen. Of course the plants have done this without foresight or conscious planning, and the various animals which carry out cross-pollination duties do so completely unaware. Darwin was fascinated by the specialization of orchids, and the moths that were able to reach their nectar. In some cases the orchids’ nectaries were over fifteen inches long, and only a single species of moth was able to reach the nectar. This kind of ‘relationship’ between the orchid and the moth maximizes the likelihood of the moth fulfilling cross-pollination duties, because it is so closely adapted to the single orchid species. Orchids and their ‘pets’ are spectacular examples of co-evolution, and demonstrations of unconscious processes leading to a sort of natural domestication- the orchid ‘domesticates’ the moth.

Dawkins takes another step further down this path of natural processes to explore what Darwin called ’sexual selection’- the choosing of a mate. In countless species we observe competition among potential mates and the subsequent development of characteristics that ‘appeal’ to the mate doing the choosing. Birds are excellent examples with their color, plumage and song. Presumably these animals are not aware of their role in choosing certain characteristics and driving the trend toward brighter colors, fancier plumage or more complex songs. Here are yet more examples of choosing without the benefit of foresight, choices that affect which characteristics flood the gene pool.

There are also inverted examples of choosing, where animals that resemble something inedible or hazardous are able to avoid being ‘chosen’ as prey. Dawkins cites wasp-mimicking and bee-mimicking stingless flies, bugs that resemble sticks, and caterpillars that resemble snakes. These animals do not choose to resemble these things, but rather their predators do the choosing by not eating those animals which possess such characteristics. Again, no foresight needed.

As all of these examples differ from artificial selection in that they are achieved without foresight, we have now arrived at natural selection. We have also begun to explore the evidence for evolution. The trends that are found in the examples given, and indeed throughout the natural world, are explained by natural selection and confirmed by experiments in artificial selection. That bodies can be manipulated through the selection process is clearly established, but so far we have only confirmed that is has occurred within a certain time frame- the mere centuries it has taken to domesticate the various plants and animals, and the time it has taken to develop some of the adaptations mentioned in the chapter. If life on our planet has truly existed for over 3 billion years, natural selection has had tens of millions of centuries to achieve the complex variety we see today. But:

…all this presupposes that we know the age of the Earth, and of the various landmark points in the fossil record. This is a book about evidence, so I can’t just assert dates but must justify them. How, actually, do we know the age of any particular rock? How do we know the age of a fossil? How do we know the age of the Earth? How, for that matter, so we know the age of the universe? We need clocks, and clocks are the subject of the next chapter.

Up next, chapter 4: Silence and Slow Time

Blogging Dawkins – Chapter 2

Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection was, in part, informed by his experience with domestication and selective breeding techniques. He worked closely with pigeon fanciers and horticulturalists, and wrote a whole book on the subject. Because of the very tangible results of artificial selection, Darwin found it to be a useful experimental and explanatory tool, and Dawkins explores it further here in chapter 2.

The clear example that Dawkins chooses is the domestication of the dog. Anyone can see the dramatic difference between the wolf and the Weimaraner, or the St. Bernard and the Chuhuahua. Another clear example from the plant world is the wild cabbage and it’s domestic counterparts from the Brussel’s sprout to Cauliflower and Kale. All of these dramatic differences were achieved relatively rapidly through artificial selection.

But how is this achieved? By simply selecting for desirable characteristics. Once certain characteristics are achieved, they are preserved by isolation on ‘virtual islands’, maintaining a separate gene pool for the newly selected variety. Through the generations, certain traits are preserved while others are minimized or eliminated altogether, resulting in the vastly different breeds and varietals we have today.

Much of the breeding responsible for modern domestic plants and animals was achieved long before Mendelian genetics and the discovery of DNA. But the principles uncovered by these discoveries help explain the underlying process responsible for producing and preserving such changes in domestic plants and animals. Dawkins’ analogy likens gene recombination to the shuffling of cards in a deck- artificial selection is working with the available genetic material; speciation via natural selection requires mutation, which is why canis is still canis, but I’m getting ahead of the chapter here.

So what is the point?

While artificial selection is evolution in the broad sense of ‘change over time’, it is clearly not the same process responsible for the evolution of life. But it demonstrates that body plans are not fixed, they are subject to changes in genetic material and the forces of selection. This is a fact, as shown by artificial selection and explained by genetic research. Dawkins asks:

…why shouldn’t the non-random survival of wild animals and plants do the same thing over millions of years?

The point is that evolution can happen given enough time, genetic material and a selection filter. This is more softening up for what lies ahead.

Up next: Chapter 3 – The Primrose Path to Macro-Evolution

Blogging Dawkins – Chapter 1

Since Dawkins’ newest book (The Greatest Show on Earth) deals with the evidence for evolution, I thought it might be interesting to summarize each chapter with a blog post for those who might be interested in the subject but short on time or desire to read a 400+ page book about it. I do think the book is interesting enough, and of course well-written, that it is worth the read. Dawkins’ earlier books are among my favorite popular science books because of their clarity and their ability to inspire awe and deepen understanding of sometimes complex subject matter, and his latest is no exception. He is of course well-qualified to write on the subject, and the critical reviews have been favorable thus far. However, I think Dawkins’ occasional creationist bashing is not conducive to persuading those who need a book like this the most.

The first chapter is entitled “Only a Theory?” and it begins by highlighting the necessity of books such as his, which seek to emphasize the breadth and depth of evidence in support of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). Dawkins is well aware of the resistance to ToE and the supposed implications often cited by it’s opponents, which he discusses briefly, along with the polling numbers showing the US population of ToE deniers hovering around 40%. Dawkins sets a high bar, contending that:

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact…Why then do we speak of Darwin’s theory of evolution…?

He then lists two pertinent definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary. The first defines the common-use term as basically a guess, speculation or conjecture. This is what most people think of when they hear the word theory, so it is often assumed to apply to the ToE. However, the scientific usage is defined differently:

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principals, or causes or something known or observed.

Obviously anything that meets the second definition goes well beyond mere guesswork. That it has been elevated to the status of theory indicates that it has been well-tested and accepted as an explanation of known facts and observed phenomena.

There is some further distinction that Dawkins makes regarding facts and “proofs”, observing that a proof only truly exists in mathematics. Facts are not proven, but they can be understood as known beyond reasonable doubt. He also makes the case that much of the evidence we have in support of scientific theories like ToE are more reliable than eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable.

Thus begins the “softening-up” (mentioned in the next chapter- I’ve read ahead a bit) which prepares the reader to understand what scientific knowledge is, what is known and how it is known. Obviously he has not begun with the evidence yet. Will it be convincing? Stay tuned. Up next, Chapter 2: Dogs, Cows and Cabbages

Daniel and Prophesy- an email exchange

Some time back I met a man from my parents church (an independent Baptist church in North Carolina) who, I was told, had been asking about me and had an interest in meeting me. My initial sense was that he felt he could effectively proselytize me- he was a self-proclaimed Bible history buff. My folks obtained my permission to give him my number, he called and invited me to dinner. Sheer curiosity led me to accept.

At dinner we didn’t discuss anything of substance- geography, family stuff, food, weather- I could tell he was laying the groundwork and trying to earn my trust, befriending me so he could later penetrate me with his spiritual insights. I played along. He said he wanted to talk with me about some “questions I might have”. Since we lived in different cities and operated on different schedules, I suggested email as the best form of correspondence. He agreed.

I could tell right away that he wasn’t proficient with email- he sent four in a row, all saying basically the same rambling things, then one asking me if I got any of his emails. Off to a good start! Through this first round of emails he decided to focus on one question in particular: when was the book of Daniel written? He asked me to answer first, like a teacher would a student. I did some minor research to build my response.

For those who aren’t familiar with the subject, Daniel is an Old Testament book which is considered by most Christians to contain prophesy, written around 55o B.C.E.  (It also contains fantastic stories of Daniel in the lions’ den and people hanging out with Jesus in a furnace.) Most historians and literary scholars hold that Daniel was written around 165 B.C.E. for a number of compelling reasons.

For starters, “prophetic” literature was common in the second century B.C.E. There are also errors found in Daniel that had become common historical misconceptions by the second century.

I responded by saying that, in addition to the general consensus of a later date I think it is simply more reasonable to believe that someone would pretend they were telling the future and had supernatural powers than to believe it is actually true. The default response should be to reject such extraordinary claims unless compelling evidence is provided. Cue rambling response:

I appreciate your quick reply on the date of Daniel.
The date you indicate (at least to which you are lean-
ing is the date the Higher Critics of German
Rationalism has espoused.  When Alexander the Great
came through Palistine [sic] on the way to Egypt, he was
(as was his bent) going to destroy Jerusalem, but the
Jews pointed out to him that is was written that the
he-goat was him that was prophesied in the middle of
the book of Daniel.  Historically, that at least dates
the existance [sic] of Daniel to pre-330 BC days.

I have no idea who the Higher Critics of German Rationalism are or what that has to do with anything, but I thought it too entertaining to omit. As for the connection to Alexander the Great, I found this suggestion compelling so I asked for a reference. In the meantime I had done a little more research, so I decided to address a few points.

To start I reiterated that accepting such extraordinary claims without compelling evidence is something I simply would not do. I pointed out that such credulity is common, and that we should embrace critical thinking to guard against such faulty reasoning. Then for good measure I went on to point out that Daniel’s succession of kings was at odds with public records and perpetuated common second-century errors. Remember that I thought I was having dialogue with a history buff, so I tried to do my homework.

His reply came back with a reference to Whiston’s translation of the Antiquities of the Jews. These are writings of Josephus from around the turn of the century, nearly 500 years after the supposed writing of Daniel! Here’s part of my reply:

Regarding Josephus’ story, I fail to see the confirmation that you suggest. If the Antiquities of the Jews was published between 93-4CE, it only confirms that Daniel, as literature and lore, was well circulated among educated Jews. Josephus relays a number of stories that are rooted in various works dating through the previous few thousand years. This does not confirm any of these as historically accurate…A more appropriate confirmation of Daniel having existed before 165BCE would be actual contemporaneous literature showing that people had knowledge of this book prior to that time.

I then asked if he would be addressing my research on the succession of kings in Daniel. This is where our little exchange began to break down. He completely ignored my point and attacked my request for contemporaneous literature:

The triangulation of ancient documents as a
requirement and basis for substantive discussions must
be equally applied to lesser documents in order to
prove to me that you are realistic in your proofs of
evidence. Would you please find a document
contemporaneous with the Illiad, which was supposedly
written by Homer?

At this point I was getting bored. I told him that I was not interested in having the onus turned around on me- he had implied that there was a great deal of evidence to support the historicity of Daniel and he had not produced anything compelling. This was his problem, not mine. I would simply go on rejecting prophecy and other such nonsense. Also, why would he not address the succession of kings?

His reply was an ejaculation of mostly nonsense, at least five-hundred words. Wellhausen redationism came up (whatever that is) and there was a long diatribe about how my method of document triangulation must be tested to demonstrate its viability. While I understood his point, he was all worked up over nothing. I was only making a suggestion as to what irrefutable evidence might look like and how that was different from what he was selling.

Of course I went to great pains to break everything down for him and try to spell out in very specific terms where I was coming from and why I doubted where he believed. This was an experiment for me, a chance to engage someone primarily on an intellectual level. It was an unfortunate flop. I’m sure he felt similar frustration, although I feel like I tried much harder to address all the details and he spent most of his time hand-waving and tossing red herrings.

He wanted to forward my email address to his anti-evolution buddies. I declined. Eventually he tried to change the subject to….gardening! I was sure that I had defeated his greatest efforts, especially after he stopped correspondence completely. Then he resigned from the church. Maybe I got through to him after all! Hey, I do what I can.

Leaving the Fold

It has been six years since my apostasy liberation from the Christian faith, and even fewer that have I felt comfortable speaking out and being transparent about my religious views. This latter process is in constant flux as I reflect on what I’ve learned, what works and what doesn’t. Initially I felt a sense of moral and intellectual outrage at those closest to me who declined to be moved by my deconversion, beyond a sense of fear and pity, a sense of loss. My hope for upheaval and enlightenment borne out of mutual respect for one another and a desire to know what is true proved to be naked, fruitless optimism.

Despite my strident and persistent approach to have dialogue with my family, our relationships remain intact and, in some small ways, stronger from it. While our inability to truly understand and respect one another in our opposing views remains a source of disappointment, the mutual desire to prevent those differences from destroying our relationships has been the keystone keeping things together.

Based on other accounts I’ve heard, it’s not uncommon to be practically disowned by family and friends alike for lesser doubts than those which I’ve espoused. In regards to my family, I’m grateful for the relationship we have more than I regret the things we can’t share.

It seems likely that one would find family on the extreme end of the spectrum as far as emotional response or reaction to such things. But what of friends and acquaintances? I’ve always maintained a diverse group of friends with differing viewpoints, some of whom welcomed my apostasy liberation while others, not so much.

I got a phone call recently from an old friend, one from my days as a Christian camp counselor. We had lost touch over the years, but we reconnected immediately. We discussed some people from our time at camp and it came out that I had lost touch with some people because I was no longer a Christian. I told him about the responses I got from camp friends ranging from total acceptance to indifference to outright hostility. Some protested with sustained silence and now we don’t speak. I had several people nod their heads and say “I completely understand”, having apparently struggled with some of the same issues themselves, although arriving at a different position. The most common response tended to be the barrage of familiar questions: if there is no god, why do we exist? Where do morals come from? Miracles? (Insert argument from personal incredulity here.) I assume my responses conveyed that I had seriously considered these questions, and we generally agreed to disagree.

After I had shared a few of these stories with him he made it clear that he respected me all the same, and that he felt that the person he had come to appreciate in me was still very much intact. We made plans to pick things up sometime in the near future.

These experiences reveal the value of affirming atheism and not hiding it from people out of fear or shame. A rational, intellectual and informed atheism should be shared freely and openly, and only then will public opinion begin to change for the better. Those who would reject such a position out of hand will become fewer over time, their fearful rejection of intellectual integrity laid bare for all to see. There are plenty of people who will find that their respect for others does not come from shared ideologies or superficial religious views, but from more meaningful interactions and character traits that are rooted in something deeper, something that transcends the tribalistic us-versus-them of religion. I am grateful for those friends and look forward to discovering more of them.