Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s Jonathan Wells on destroying Darwinism – and responding to attacks on his character and motives

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Jonathan Wells

In a recent interview for Salvo magazine, I was asked what advice on junk DNA I would give to Francis Collins or Richard Dawkins.

On November 3, UD posted my response. According to the first comment following that post,

Jonathan Wells is the last person from whom Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins would solicit advice.

I agree. But the commenter, “Single Malt,” went on to question whether I’m qualified to give advice to anybody about anything in biology:

For those not familiar here is a quote…?“Father’s [Sun Myung Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” That’s incredibly damning if true. It basically tells us that before Wells had even studied the subject he had been instructed to devote his life to destroying it! ?Does this not color completely anything Wells publishes concerning the biological sciences?

Now, I don’t know who “Single Malt” is. To the best of my knowledge he (or she) has never met me, spoken with me on the telephone, or corresponded with me by letter or email. Since I like single malt scotch, however, if he or she had contacted me I would have been happy to explain over a friendly drink why I wrote the sentence quoted above.

Here’s what I would have said:

As an undergraduate at Princeton and Berkeley in the 1960s I studied mathematics, geology, physics and biology (with minors in philosophy and German). Along the way—despite my upbringing as a nominal Presbyterian—I became an agnostic and a Darwinist.(Note: By “Darwinism,” I mean the claim that all living things are descended from one or a few common ancestors, modified solely by unguided natural processes such as variation and selection. For the sake of brevity, I use the term here also to include Neo-Darwinism, which attributes new variations to genetic mutations.)

In 1963, I dropped out of Princeton and drove a New York City taxicab until I was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1964. While spending two years in Germany as a medical laboratory technologist, I became opposed to the Vietnam War, and after I was separated from active duty in 1966 I transferred to Berkeley and joined the antiwar movement.

The Army called me back as a reservist in 1967, but I refused and spent a year and a half in prison. After being released from Leavenworth in 1969, I completed my bachelor’s degree at Berkeley. By 1970, however, I was repulsed by the increasingly violent and hypocritical Berkeley Left, and I soon headed for the hills. Living in a cabin I built in the mountains of Mendocino County, I was transformed by the beauty, peace and evident design around me. I ceased being an agnostic and a Darwinist.

In 1974 I joined Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. In 1976 I entered Unification Theological Seminary in New York, where I studied the Pentateuch under a Romanian Orthodox Jewish rabbi; the New Testament under a Reformed Church of America minister; the Early Church Fathers under a Greek Orthodox priest; philosophy under a Polish Roman Catholic priest with three earned doctorates; medieval theology under a Church of Christ missionary with a doctorate from the University of Tübingen; and Reformation and modern theology under a Presbyterian with a doctorate from Harvard.

I read—and was repelled by—modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and tried to re-fashion Christian doctrine in the light of it. I also took advantage of a weekly seminary shuttle to New York City to do research at the Columbia University biology library, where I became convinced that the Darwinian mechanism of accidental mutations and natural selection is incapable of producing the changes required by evolution.

As I researched more I concluded that the Achilles’ heel of Darwinism is its assumption that genetic programs control embryo development, with DNA mutations supplying raw materials for evolution. At the time, however, I did not question Darwin’s claim that all living things are descended from a common ancestor.

Reverend Moon occasionally criticized Darwinism in his speeches, because it conflicted with reason and denied design. He often visited the seminary during my two years there, and we students would walk with him in the nearby fields and woods. He urged us (among other things) to pray in order to find out what God wanted us to do with our lives. I followed his advice, and my prayers strengthened the conviction I had arrived at through my studies that Darwinism (like Marxism and Freudianism) is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science—and that I should set out to destroy its dominance in our culture.

In 1978, I was one of a score of seminary graduates awarded church scholarships to pursue doctorates in religious studies at other schools. I went to Yale, where I did research on the nineteenth-century Darwinian controversies and received a Ph.D. in theology in 1985. After that, I was appointed Director of the Unification Church’s inter-religious outreach organization in New York City.

I still felt called to devote myself to toppling Darwinism, however, so in 1988 I resigned from my position to return to graduate school—this time in biology. I applied to several schools in California and moved there with my family, only to learn that I had not been admitted anywhere. I took a job as a medical laboratory technologist (the Army had taught me a trade!) and sometime afterwards went back to New York to attend a meeting between Unification Church leaders and Reverend Moon. When he learned that I was planning to go back to graduate school he admonished me not to do it, saying that I was too old (I was 45 at the time). After the meeting, however, I prayed for a long time and decided that I had to continue on my course.

I returned to California and applied again to various graduate schools. In 1989 I was granted interviews at Cal Tech, Stanford, U.C. Berkeley, and U.C. Davis. I chose Berkeley, where I completed a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology in 1994. By then—having been exposed to the actual evidence—I was skeptical of Darwin’s claim that all living things share a common ancestor.

A senior Unification Church leader then asked me to write something for other church members explaining why I went for a second Ph.D. even after Reverend Moon had admonished me against doing so. I wrote an essay that I thought would be for in-house use only, but it was subsequently posted on the Internet without my knowledge or permission.

I first learned that my essay was available online in 2001, when Jerry Coyne made it the alpha and omega of his review in Nature of my book Icons of Evolution.

Since then, many of my critics have quoted the now-infamous line, “Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.” (For a sampling, just do a Google search on the words.) Remarkably, Darwinists never quote much else from my essay, even though the 18 words in this one line represent only 1% of it, while a subsequent passage dealing with my scientific reasons for rejecting Darwinism represents 37%. Talk about quote mining…

Nor (as far as I know) have any Darwinists bothered to learn anything about the context in which I wrote the essay. If they had, they would know that Reverend Moon did not instruct or command me to destroy Darwinism (though years later he commended me on publishing Icons of Evolution.)

So, can I be trusted to say anything concerning the biological sciences? I freely admit that I was motivated to pursue a biology Ph.D., in part, because of my religious views. On the other hand, Francis Crick freely admitted (to historian Horace Freeland Judson) that he went into biology, in part, because of his atheistic views. What ultimately mattered in Crick’s case was not his motivation, but whether his biological claims were consistent with the evidence. The same is true in my case. That’s why I cite abundant scientific references in my publications—such as Icons of Evolution, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, The Myth of Junk DNA, and “Why Darwinism Is False”, a detailed critique of Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution Is True.

I encourage readers not simply to take my word for anything, but to go the scientific literature and check for themselves. After all, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evidence.

Now, wouldn’t it have been more enjoyable listening to that over a glass of Glenlivet or Macallan?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
I don't see it as a red-herring. An analogy about a junkyard does not detract from the fact that ID has made the prediction that function will be found for junk DNA. Once again the Word snip example proves my point. Sure, you could have something that seems endless and meaningless but was functional, like a Word document opened in Notepad, but then its functionality is highly contingent on that seemingly meaningless sequence being maintained. This doesn't happen in the case of putative DNA junk.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
So, you're actually going to fall back on the "we weren't there" argument? The ultimate source of variation amongst the DNA of different people is indeed mutation. When observations can be made of the the differences that exist between parents and offspring, the de novo differences are indeed the result of mutation. We don't understand everything about the genome - sure. But we understand enough to make some inferences. I have given you several lines of evidence that supports a most-likely picture of a majority of the genome being junk, and you have not answered any of them directly yet.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
Notice, all of this is rather red herring-y. The piles of junk in a junkyard do not detract from the evidence of a bit of working machinery that points to design. In addition, the onward inferences and dismissals seem to be driven more by what we do not know but assume than what we do know. Cf again the above Word snip seemingly endless and meaningless repeat example.kairosfocus
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
And an additional note - there is still the problem of the mutational load. You simply cannot have a majority of the genome with functional specificity in any mammal, given a typical mammalian mutation rate. 10% of the genome is the approximate limit (based on typical genome size). This applies generally - i.e to humans, to mice and to other mammals. The more functional bases, the more function that is degraded by mutation in each generation. This was the origin of the junk DNA concept (i.e. Ohno, 1972).paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
My principal observation is that we were not there to see the deep-time variants that are suggested (noting as well that variations among people have many possible sources, not just mutations), and I noted that we should be very restrained in our dismissals of the genome that we only very partly understand [hence, my comparison to something as simple as a Word Doc . . . . notice the great number of apparently useless repeats that do something, as snip and the doc dies].kairosfocus
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Nonetheless, a large amount of junk DNA would be a threat to ID, as functionality for junk DNA is a prediction of ID. While function is being found regularly in the genome in places it wasn't previous known, it's a matter of a microRNA there, a pseudogene that regulates gene expression there. You could literally discover 1 million microRNAs and you'd be accounting for 1% of the genome. There'd still be 90% unexplained.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Wells discusses that exact sequences are not necessary for function. Does he suggest anywhere that for most functions, any old sequence will do? I don't think so. A majority of the genome accumulates changes at a much faster rate than functional genes, showing no evidence of sequence evolution being constrained by natural selection. That is like saying any old sequence will do. Also, stating that Wells mentioned something in his book, is not quite the same as making an actual argument, is it? If you'd like to make a case for enormous, functional tracts of the genome that require no sequence specificity, then why not make it yourself?paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Note to Larry Moran- On your blog you said:
Any amount of junk DNA is a threat to the basic concept of intelligent design.
That is just plain ignorant. Intelligent Design does not say the design is perfect. Intelligent Design does not say that even if the design started out perfect that it had to remain that way (entropy and all). But thanks for the laughs...Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Well, these unconstrained changes - including both the accumulation of mutations and new insertions of retrotransposons - can be observed between people. It doesn't require assumptions of deep time, and it cannot be explained by functional differences between species. It does rely on mutation being responsible for the changes. But then, we have also observed mutation as close to directly as possible - happening between generations of people. Presumably, you wouldn't be rejecting that mutation is responsible for genetic differences observed between people. You didn't answer my question before: you stated "it should be clear (on inference) that much of [an organism's DNA] fulfills body-plan specific regulatory function" to which I ask: all regulatory, coding and other known functional DNA accounts for 9% of the genome. What evidence do you have for widespread regulatory function beyond that? And how would this operate, given the lack of sequence constraint?paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
"The junk concept can be confronted with a series of inferred or presumptive features of molecular evolution that collectively seem capable of pushing the junk DNA paradigm out of the central position that in many quarters it is still considered to occupy." Who said that? Emile Zuckerkandl What year? 1991 There are roughly 33,000 references to "junk DNA" in googlescholar alone, published in every professional venue without exception. Take a look at the number of "revisiting" "reformulating" "rethinking" junk DNA papers that exist in the record. To suggest that junk DNA was not a marketing term among ideological biologists is to be a flat out dumbass.Upright BiPed
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
Yes Larry, I understand that you are far too stupid to understand oft-used design techniques-> ie planning for future needs. The issue is, as I see it, that blind, undirected chemical processes cannot account for the genes and regulatory networks involved in synthesizing vitamin C in the first place. That said I also understand that blind, undirected chemical processes are good at breaking things. So at first glance it may appear that is what happened. However given our knowledge of design techniques it is also possible that these are just "genes in waiting" for some enivironmental cue. Not that your devolved sense of awareness could grasp any of that.Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Well Larry you state: 'The truth is that no knowledgeable scientist ever suggested that regulatory regions, origins of replication, centromeres, telomeres, genes that produce functional RNA molecules, and chromatin organizing regions were ever classified as junk DNA.' That's pretty much a after the fact rationalization after function was discovered (As I listed several articles that do indeed show many 'knowlegeable scientist' predicted it:. But I guess you get to cherry pick who is a knowledgeable scientist and who is not???. ,,, you then state:
Wells also claims that the existence of large amounts of junk DNA was a prediction of Darwinism and is promoted as proof of Darwinian evolution. This is a lie.
Apparently you have never promoted the supposed Vitamin C pseudogene as powerful evidence of neo-Darwinism???
Larry Moran: Vitamin C Pseudogene is Powerful Evidence http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/larry-moran-vitamin-c-pseudogene-is.html
But then that can't be true Larry for then that would make you a liar for denying that you even have promoted junk DNA as proof of neo-Darwinism!?! :) Notes as to wide scale functionality: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/heres-jonathan-wells-on-destroying-darwinism-and-responding-to-attacks-on-his-character-and-motives/comment-page-1/#comment-408027bornagain77
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Joseph says,
Genes that are at the present time functionless good be “in waiting”- that is waiting for activation- The GULO gene is a prime example- it isn’t that we lost the ability to synythesize vitamin C- we NEVER had it. The “broken” GULO gene is for possible FUTURE use. The same goes for other alleged pseudo genes.
LOL I appreciate the satire. You've done a really good job of imitating an IDiot. But you have to be careful. There are some people posting here who might think you are serious.Larry Moran
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Eocene says,
And ultimately that is what all of this JUNK subject is all about, their FAITH. It’s also about their inability to admit they don’t know something and therefore the intellectual need to invent a terminology to prop up a Dogma.
Do you know why I refer to Intelligent Design Creationists as IDiots? It's because of statements like that. You're not the least bit interested in learning about the evidence for junk DNA, are you? I spent months understanding and reviewing The Myth of Junk DNA. Surely the least you could have done is read my reviews before exposing your stupidity for all the world to see?Larry Moran
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Well Paul, if simply denying that neo-Darwinists predicted junk DNA constitutes a rebuttal for you, I don’t know if you are really wanting to see this issue fairly:
I can see that reading and reading comprehension aren't your strong points. Here's what I actually said in the last posting of my review of The Myth of Junk DNA."
Wells never defines "junk DNA" correctly. The correct definition of "junk" is DNA that has no known function. Wells pretends that the original definition of junk DNA was "noncoding" DNA. Thus, all those bits of noncoding DNA that have a function are evidence that refutes the notion of junk DNA. The truth is that no knowledgeable scientist ever suggested that regulatory regions, origins of replication, centromeres, telomeres, genes that produce functional RNA molecules, and chromatin organizing regions were ever classified as junk DNA. They all knew that there was lots of noncoding DNA that had a well-defined function. Right from the beginning of his book, Wells is attacking a strawman and misleading his readers. That's not the only example of deception. Wells also claims that the existence of large amounts of junk DNA was a prediction of Darwinism and is promoted as proof of Darwinian evolution. This is a lie. Junk DNA actually represents a serious problem for Darwinism (evolution by natural selection) and it certainly was never "predicted" by adaptationists.
Larry Moran
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
And, assuming what was to be shown.kairosfocus
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
And, how did you OBSERVE these wonderful fast mutations across deep time, again? [Or, is this a case of inferring on the assumption you were meant to prove?]kairosfocus
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
The 90/10 rule is irrelevant unless you explain why random changes to the 90 percent don’t have any functional effect.
The 90/10 rule would predict that determining what, if anything, the 90% does, is much more difficult. Before you acccept the above as "relevant" we first need to explain what the 90% does? Have I understood you correctly?
Even removing the code has no effect.
Given my very limited understanding of biology I can only assume this must be true (although perhaps you can provide a reference?). However, even if true, if we still use the 90/10 rule as a guide, the 90% of code is only needed in 10% of cases. After removing the 90% of code, it would have to be shown that 100% of possible cases has been executed to prove that the code does nothing.Dunsinane
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Again redundancy and future functions- you guys really need to get out of your little box.Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
The 90/10 rule is irrelevant unless you explain why random changes to the 90 percent don't have any functional effect. Even removing the code has no effect.Petrushka
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
This talk of 10% and 90% reminded me of the Pareto principle as it is applied to software optimisation. In short "90% of the execution time of a computer program is spent executing 10% of the code". If someone was to try and work out what a piece of software actually did based on it's execution (i.e. trace output), it seems reasonable to assume that the 10% that was used most often would be the easiest to determine. The remaining 90% would require a great deal more time.Dunsinane
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Chas D, Wells discusses a function for ALU and LINE1. You didn’t read the book did you? I am well aware of the existence of Alu and LINE1 in functional positions. You didn't read the whole post did you? There are 1.1 million Alus and 500,000 LINE1's. Most of them are NOT in functional positions. Most of them are not even transcribed. You need to explain away 28% of the genome, which you can't do by invoking some other part - even if it happens to have a related sequence. Each functional element is only functional in context.Chas D
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
tjguy
This assumption was easy to make. I think scientists were actually eager to make that assumption because it fit so well with their ideas of evolution.
Simply untrue. Evolutionists like Dawkins are pretty quiet about junk because, like ID-ers, he is inclined to see a kind of 'perfectionism' in organismal form. Unlike ID-ers, he has a strong positive opinion on the power of Natural Selection. Others, like Moran, set more store by the 'accidental' nature of much change at the molecular level - it is largely invisible to selection, but still subject to the inescapable process of Genetic Drift. No-one really cares if junk is large or small; they simply argue for the most sensible interpretation of the available data. Even then, it is important to be clear what kind of organism you are arguing about. The constraints on Prokaryotic, Single-celled Eukaryotic and Multicellular Eukaryotic genome sizes are very different.
Many evolutionists would be happy if we quit looking for functions in this non-coding section of “junk” because the continued ignorance of function serves their purposes well. This is how evolution can also be a science stopper!
No, no, no, no, NO!!! As I said in the response to Barb above, scientists are hungry for discovery. It is a bizarre caricature perpetuated solely in ID/Creationist mythology that scientists are looking only for the information that bolsters their worldview. Goddidit is the science stopper.Chas D
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Chas D, Wells discusses a function for ALU and LINE1. You didn't read the book did you?Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Chas D – so, if there is no apparent function, should biologists and scientists stop looking for one?
Not at all. No one is more delighted than the scientist when something new is discovered! The tone around here is to view scientists as searching for sufficient information to support some mythical atheist-materialist worldview, then stop when they find it. That is simply untrue. Everybody wants to discover something no-one else has discovered. That's how reputations are made, and that's the fundamental driver - simple curiosity. If I could discover a better reason for the 28% of the genome devoted to simple repetition of 2 transposable sequences, Alu and LINE1, than the simple fact that they contain the means to propagate around genomes 'selfishly' and increase their own copy number, then I would grab it two-fisted, and a paper to Nature would be hot on the heels of this discovery. But from where we stand, such a discovery seems hugely unlikely. And the same goes for much else in the genome. Find a function if you can, but all 'junk DNA' says is that there is a proportion of the genome that does not need to be there. How big that proportion, and what it contains, are matters for debate and ongoing investigation. But 'Junk/non-Junk' is simply a classification, a recognition of an apparent biologial reality.Chas D
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
1- Alleged pseudo-genes may not be 2- Genes that are at the present time functionless good be "in waiting"- that is waiting for activation- The GULO gene is a prime example- it isn't that we lost the ability to synythesize vitamin C- we NEVER had it. The "broken" GULO gene is for possible FUTURE use. The same goes for other alleged pseudo genes. Then we have other sequences of DNA not currently being used- again for future possible use- think recombination. Then there are spacers for timing of expression- Wells' non-sequence specific functionality. The bottom line is only IGNORANCE says that 50% or more of our DNA is junk.Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Geez Paul, Wells goes over that in his book- that is he discusses non-sequence specific functionality. Did YOU read the book, Paul?Joseph
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
As far as I know, Mendeleyev saw his periodic system of chemical elements in a dream. Without a slightest intent to diminish the significance of Divine Revelation in science, I hazard a guess that on this particular occasion it might be because he had been thinking about it hard enough.Eugene S
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
You're proving my point. The reality is that the putative junk does accumulate mutations much faster than do functional sequences. This is why it is hard to imagine how they might be functionally important.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT
Um, I would rather a guinea pig be the guinea pig. Or a mouse. But rather than dealing in hypotheticals, there is literature on this topic. Notably, some putative junk sequences, such as pseudogenes, might still be transcribed and regulate the expression of functional genes, despite not being otherwise functional themselves. So removing them would have an effect, even though it is an odd way of regulating gene expression by design, when there are more direct mechanisms for achieving the same outcome. Note that pseudogenes themselves only comprise 1 or 2 % of the genome though.paulmc
November 8, 2011
November
11
Nov
8
08
2011
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply