Evaluating Evolutionary Claims By Thinking Like a Scientist
To critically evaluate scientific claims, we must think like a scientist. But what are the qualities of a good scientist? On this ID The Future, host Andrew McDiarmid welcomes molecular biologist and research scientist Dr. Marci Reeves to the show to remind us how to think like a scientist to properly assess the claims of important scientific theories, including the neo-Darwinian account of life and the universe.
Learn more about these key principles of scientific thinking:
- Following evidence where it leads rather than blindly trusting “scientific consensus,” which Dr. Reeves notes does not mean fact. She critiques the “trust the science” mentality, highlighting how evidence can unfold to contradict previous assumptions.
- Distinguishing raw data from interpretation, using the analogy of a beautifully frosted cake. The bottom layer is the raw data, while additional layers like interpretation, narrative, and hype are often added that can obscure the actual scientific facts.
- Defining terms clearly, particularly for complex concepts like “evolution.” Dr. Reeves breaks down the meanings of evolution into “change over time” (adaptation), “universal common descent” (a “picture” of a branching tree of life), and the “mechanism of change” (natural selection acting on DNA mutations). She also clarifies her working definition of intelligent design.
- Scrutinizing how scientific findings are conveyed, citing the example of red wine’s purported health benefits. When the raw data is properly understood, it would require humans to drink six bottles of wine a day for equivalent antioxidant effects.
- Differentiating correlation from causation, illustrated by a simple analogy about potatoes: Potatoes have skin. I have skin. Therefore I’m a potato. Dr. Reeves explains how to keep the relationship between correlation and causation clear.
- Acknowledging that invention requires information, using the simple act of teaching a child to tie shoelaces. From shoe laces to rocket inventions, novel information resulting in complexity and design must be properly accounted for. This also means that accidental invention is highly improbable.
Dr. Reeves also discusses her previous work at the Biologic Institute with Dr. Douglas Axe and Dr. Ann Gauger. Her work investigated whether one protein could be mutated to perform the function of a different, vital protein within a living cell. Their experiments, which involved both designed and random mutational approaches, showed that it was not possible to achieve this new function, suggesting it would take “astronomically huge” numbers of mutations and more time than the age of the universe for such an event to occur. This research, Dr. Reeves concludes, “drains the magic out of the Darwinian mechanism” by demonstrating its limits in inventing new proteins and cell types.
Dig Deeper
- Watch the presentation from Dr. Reeves that inspired this conversation!
- Watch this clip with Dr. Douglas Axe explaining the limits of Darwinian processes, a topic explored in his book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed