Stuart Burgess
Stuart Burgess BSc, PhD, CEng, MIMechE is a Professor of Design and Nature in the Department of Mechanical Engineering (he is head of the department) at the University of Bristol in the UK. Bristol is one of Britain's better universities (it's in the Russell League of the top 17, but is not Golden Triangle, top 6, establishment).
Burgess is also both a hard-line fundamentalist and a very active creationist. We judge that he is a leading member of the tiny hard-core group of activist creationists in British academia. He's a big fish in other words. And very opinionated as you will find out in this article about his science.
Of all the creationists in the UK, Burgess is the one that actually frightens the author of this article most (and by a long margin). It's his personality that is so scary. If anything, it was seeing him being interviewed on BBC regional TV where he claimed that he told children they would go to hell if they believed the theory of evolution, that swung the verdict (heavily).
He was using fear to try to force his extreme religious opinions and deep ignorance of much of science on to other people's children. It was deeply offensive seeing a man trying to control children by fear.
Burgess' activism includes involvement in Truth in Science, signing the 2002 Estelle Morris letter, proselytising creationism in schools, frequent public lectures and speeches on creationism, writing books and articles on creationism and involvement in creationist organisations. Burgess was one of the speakers at Answers in Genesis' 2006 "Creation Without Compromise" conference at Swanwick in Derbyshire.
Burgess is apparently a Baptist and, according to Answers in Genesis, is a member of Buckingham Chapel in Bristol. This is described as an Evangelical Baptist church. He also holds a diploma in Theology from the London Reformed Baptist Seminary (part of the Metropolitan Tabernacle). However, we have no idea what status this holds. The Metropolitan Tabernacle (Baptist) promotes creationism.
At one stage in his career Burgess worked on the solar array panel deployment mechanism of the European Space Agency's earth observation satellite Envisat. His first degree and PhD are both from Brunel University.
A summary bio of Burgess can be found at http://www.men.bris.ac.uk/contact/acstaff/scb.html (on the Bristol University web site). It lists a number of academic papers he has authored or co-authored but entirely fails to mention his religious publications.
Certainly this looks very frightening to the author of this report. A lot of the creationist papers and books that Burgess has turned out are claimed to be scientific and published by organisations such as AiG who say that they use scientific peer review. Burgess is clearly going along with this, so why the double standards from the university between Burgess' mainstream engineering work and his creationist work?
As a religious fundamentalist, Burgess is an outspoken critic of mainstream science (as taught by the university) but the site is utterly silent on the matter.
Is the university so scared of the consequences of the actions of its leading academic staff that it resorts to systematic censorship on its web site?
The author puts it to Bristol University that it is keeping references to Burgess' work off its web site because the work is so unutterably bad.
See here, http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3835f6e91ba4.htm, for evidence that Burgess' academic references are being censored. In 1999 Burgess had a paper published in AiG's "technical journal", Creation ex Nihilo (volume 12, issue 2). The paper was called "Critical Characteristics and the Irreducible Knee Joint". (You can read it at http://www.trueorigin.org/knee.asp). It states that he was on the academic payroll at Bristol and he drew upon the expertise of a fellow academic there, Dr John Davis, to produce it. Davis was then in the Department of Civil Engineering.
Yet there is no reference to the paper anywhere on the University's web site. The web site is being used to advertise the University.
The author of this article has actually read the paper and it is raving bonkers. It is wrong from the very first sentence. He doesn't even appear to know the very basics of the Theory of Evolution. There are howlers all over the paper. I almost cringed reading it.
The first sentence states that "according to the theory of evolution, natural mechanisms such as limb joints have evolved one characteristic at a time by random and rare genetic mistakes, called mutations."
The Theory of Evolution says nothing of the sort. It's not the Theory of Evolution by Mutation. It's the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. It's the latter which gives rise to evolution. It doesn't say that mutations are genetic mistakes. It doesn't say they are rare. It doesn't say natural mechanisms evolve characteristics one at a time. That's just the howlers in the first sentence!
Yet to this day Burgess is publicly pushing he belief that the knee joint demonstrates irreducible complexity. The whole argument immediately falls to pieces because Burgess does not understand that multiple traits can develop in parallel.
Burgess' religious-pseudo-science is so bad that no academic journal which uses peer review would touch it with the end of the proverbial barge-pole.
The AiG publication doesn't involve peer review because you have to be a creationist to both write for it and review its papers. As far as I am aware no technical or academic journal in the world makes the preposterous demand that you have to agree with the owners' religion opinions before submission or if you peer review for it.
So let's have a look at Burgess' position on science:
Burgess claims that Modern Cosmology and the Theory of Evolution are no more than "ploys by Satan to divert man from belief in God and a literal interpretation of Genesis". (1) So science is wrong because it doesn't fit with Burgess's religious opinions.
Burgess is author of Hallmarks by Design, published by Day One Publications (2000). He rehashes "science" about knee joints in this as well; see the extract at www.e-n.org.uk/1154-Hallmarks-of-Design.htm.
But wait, Day One Publications is not a publisher of scientific books; it publishes religious books. You should now smell a rat. This is not a science text book. Day One is the publishing arm of the Lord's Day Observance Society (renamed Day One in 2006) and publishes work by "leading evangelicals," not leading mechanical engineers or biologists.
Lets have a look at what he thinks about physics, for example:
According to the Brights movement in the UK, Burgess claims that, "There is a case for arguing that Satan has deliberately made modern theoretical physics complicated in order to blind people to the truth of the origins of the universe."
Well, don't bother applying to Bristol University to do physics when it has appointed a professor that tells you the subject matter is evil.
Now, one of the most famous graduates of Bristol University was the Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist, Paul Dirac. Dirac studied electrical engineering and mathematics at Bristol.
The Brights went on to point out to the University of Bristol that Burgess was suggesting that Dirac was in league with the devil. The Brights also pointed out that Burgess had claimed that he could prove that both Darwin and Einstein were wrong. Burgess believes that the Theory of Evolution is an "absurd and shallow deception."
Well, no such paper proving Einstein was wrong appears to have been published by Burgess and the author of this article fully expects no such paper will ever emerge from Burgess in a proper peer-reviewed journal.
You can immediately spot Burgess' fundamentalist tactic of smearing in the statement was well. It's the word "deception." Its protagonists deceive, according to Burgess. Burgess doesn't believe it so he smears by implication those that do.
Still, Burgess claims against science don't stop there. He believes that the theory of evolution is the latest ploy that Satan is using to encourage man to rebel against God (from Origin of Man). That suggests that Bristol University in its entirety is in league with the devil.
Burgess appears to be associated with the Creation Science Movement based in Portsmouth, as well as Answers in Genesis. For example, in 2002 he, alongside David Rosevear, led a creation conference in Bristol attended by approximately 70 people. At that conference Burgess revealed his position and lied to the audience:
"Dr Burgess reminded us that opposition to biblical truth is as strong today as ever, as the proponents of evolution both deny creation and try to prevent it being taught in schools."
They don't; the issue is about teaching creationism in science lessons in state schools. There is nothing to stop creationism being taught in religious education in schools.
Moreover, old earth creationists often accept the theory of evolution. (See www.evangelical-times.org/ETNews/July02/jul02n16.htm for Burgess' statement.)
Burgess is also author of "The Origin of Man" also published by Day One Publications. Interestingly, the foreword to this book was written by Professor Andrew Sims, Emeritus (meaning retired) professor of psychiatry and past President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Sounds impressive doesn't it? But Sims is a fellow hard line creationist.
One wonders precisely why Burgess and his pals got a psychiatrist to foreword the book rather than a biologist. Presumably because virtually no biologist would touch such a book? Not least because Burgess is a mechanical engineer.
Here's an example from the book of how Burgess smears with innuendo. Talking about information theory and evolution, Burgess states quite categorically that, "Atheists have often been asked to give examples of where there has been an increase in information by naturalistic means. However, they have not been able to give any credible examples." (See footnotes for the debunking of this.)
Note that his innuendo is that people who do not agree with his religious opinions are atheists – in fundamentalist circles that often means everybody who does not accept a literal view of the bible. It's nothing to do with whether someone is religious or not.
This comment is not just a matter of complete lack of intellectual honesty, it's lying and in breach of the ninth commandment. But it is bog standard fundamentalist practice. It remains, though, a deeply insulting and arrogant comment to scientists, most Christians, other believers in religion, agnostics, atheists and the indifferent who do not accept Burgess's religious extremism.
Moreover, Burgess seems to have mixed up his professional position with his religious dogma. For example the book Origin of Man made great play on the fact that Burgess had been appointed to a professorship. Yet the book is a compendium of half understood hocus-pocus on subjects that Burgess is out of his depth on. By all accounts it is not an intelligent book (see www.the-brights.net/forums/forum/index.php?showtopic=2654&st=0 for a discussion that pulls it to pieces).
The author of this article is not a scientist but instantly recognises that Burgess basically does not know what he is talking about when it comes to the Theory of Evolution and has grave doubts as to whether he understands information theory.
Burgess is up to his neck in trying to push his religious opinions into science education. For example, he has been touring schools in Northern Ireland (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/religion/sundaysequence/archive-churchstories.shtml – it's a BBC audio where Burgess states his fundamentalist views) claiming that the world is only 6,000 years old. Pity the poor children applying to enter Bristol University who have committed scientific suicide by listening to Burgess. That's before they get there!
The sad side is that, in his mainstream academic work, Burgess (and, to some extent, his co-fundamentalist Andy McIntosh) are looking at "design" in nature to apply it to engineering design. The irony is that natural design is a misnomer. The creationists deny it because Goddidit and the rest of us who care to consider it believe that form and function was caused by undirected natural selection.
Of course its dead easy to take the opinion that, for example, the human knee or eye is so complex they must have been "designed." In that case why, in both cases, is the design so seriously poor? Or, if complex organs show design, where and what is the cut-off point between those that show design and those that don't?
Likewise, if they show complexity that indicates design, which are they so much more complex than anything that has ever been designed?
And why is the design so damn messy? Good design is based on simplicity, not messy complexity.
And, finally, if they were designed, how? Was the eye designed on a piece of paper by a God. How were they then created? Were eyes just zapped down in the form of DNA from up above and suddenly inserted into the cells of bind people?
Let's have a look at what the good professor of mechanical engineering thinks about another bit of zoology. Birds.
Burgess is author of another Answers in Genesis paper, "The beauty of the peacock tail and the problems with the theory of sexual selection." This was published in AiG's TJ Magazine, Volume 15, issue 2, August 2001. He was on the University's payroll at the time.
Burgess claims that, "According to the theory of sexual selection, the peacock tail has gradually evolved because the peahen selects beautiful males for mating. However, there is no satisfactory explanation of how the sexual selection cycle can start or why the peahen should prefer beautiful features. In addition, there is irreducible complexity in both the physical structure of the feather and in the beautiful patterns."
He then goes on to say that "Even though this theory (sexual selection) has always been controversial, most evolutionists now believe that it can explain how beautiful features could evolve from nothing."
Except that without exception they don't. I am not aware of any scientist anywhere ever saying that the theory of evolution explains how something evolves from nothing. The statement is plain damn wrong. Features evolve from other features, not from nothing.
Burgess' understanding of zoology is that of a layman, not a university professor. He's a rank amateur in the subject.
Or is the mad professor trying to debunk another subject, Abiogenesis, by the back door?
Commentary on Burgess's Flawed Understanding of Science
Timothy Chase of BCSE has added the following analysis of Burgess's chronic misunderstanding of the role of mutations in evolution:
The points are in ascending order of significance, point five basically pulling Burgess to pieces:
- 1. If you are talking about a "point mutation" in a gene, it may be silent -- or it may severely disrupt the protein or proteins which the gene codes are for (e.g., by resulting in a stop codon) -- or it may be somewhere in between. And there we are just talking about point mutations -- in this case, a substitution. An insertion or deletion may be far more drastic inasmuch as it results in a shift in the reading frame. But that is with point mutations in coding sequences.
- 2. Alternatively, a far more drastic mutation is a chromosomal rearrangement. It turns out that the hotspots for chromosomal rearrangements which result in cancer today are the very same hotspots which resulted in chromosomal rearrangements during mammalian evolution from the earliest mammals to mice and men -- and there are only about 400 of them. Among the one-tenth of one percent of newborns which have these rearrangements, fifty percent are clinically significant, which means that the other fifty percent aren't.
- 3. Regardless of how much more likely deleterious mutations are than beneficial mutations, if beneficial mutations occur, in time, they will win out as they will give those who have them and the descendants who express them an advantage over the rest of the population, and this advantage will tend to translate into having more descendants who have even more descendants. (However, there is the distinct possibility that a given "beneficial" mutation will be lost multiple times before it becomes fixed in a population, that is carried by all extant members.)
- 4. Mutations in regulatory sequences (particularly promoter regions) are less likely to be deleterious than mutations in coding sequences -- since they won't actually break the protein that is expressed, but will modify the "when," the "where" and the "how much" of its expression. But at the same time, mutations in the promoter regions may have fairly significant effects. For example, the lengthening of the bones in the bat limb has been traced back to a single gene --Bone Morphogenic Protein 2 -- and changes to the promoter region have been implicated. With a similar mutation preventing the expression of a protein which induces cell death the webbing between the bones, you have the bat wing itself, and probably an animal capable of gliding from tree to tree.
- 5. In a couple of ways, it just doesn't make sense to speak of deleterious and beneficial mutations as if they were two totally separate things. Many mutations are neither silent, nor strongly beneficial nor strongly detrimental. Many are what are called "near-neutral." (See Ohta, a student of Kimura -- who originated the neutral theory of molecular evolution in 1968.) They may be slightly detrimental, but if the population and consequent gene pools are small enough, they will be largely invisible to natural selection. Moreover, what may be slightly detrimental in one context (gene duplication, for example) may be beneficial in another. And if the population in which a slightly detrimental mutation (such as a gene duplication, segmental duplication, chromosomal rearrangement, or polyploidy) occurs is small enough, as the population expands, additional mutations and gradually increasing selection may shape the original, slightly detrimental mutation into something quite positive -- this is the essential idea behind Ohno's theory regarding the origins of genomic complexity.
Tim also subsequently added that, "... the evolution of the limbs (or circulatory system -- as in the starfish, or blood-clotting mechanism, etc.) was a gradual process, but it only needed to be a gradual process. Morphological development during the growth of the organism is coordinated, but this coordination during morphological development also means that it is only a few key variables which have to change for there to be coordinated evolution. This is why both Lenny [Flank] and I emphasized regulatory genes."
Michael Suttkuss, of the Debunkcreation group, points out that every human on the planet has several mutations (changes from either parent), so they aren't at all rare. (Roger Stanyard – I believe it is about 100 mutations per person.)
Lenny Flank, Debunkcreation group owner, adds on the issue of evolving one at a time that,
This is a very common error made by creationuts --- they seem to think that every anatomical characteristic is controlled by one gene, and that for a structure like a knee to evolve, each and every one of these characteristics must appear, one at a time, with its own gene.
'T'ain't so.
Apparently the creationuts are utterly pig-ignorant about such things as Hox genes, regulatory genes, and pleiotropic genes.
Troy Britain of Talk Origins is dismissive of Burgess's claims about the human knee joint (see www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/mar02.html):
From my reading of the article it seems to be highly flawed especially in its almost total lack of discussion on the comparative anatomies of living non-human apes, extinct hominids and H. sapiens. This lack of attention to comparative anatomy (and physiology) is typical of anti-evolutionists, leading them to continually talk about the anatomy/physiology of various organisms as if they exist in a vacuum (examples: THE woodpecker or THE bombardier beetle). They focus on some extreme example of organ or system in a particular species as if it is totally unique to that species. The fact is that when one looks at other closely related species one usually finds that there are variations on the extreme example that the anti-evolutionists have focused upon. For instance the bombardier beetle that anti-evolutionists often cite is just one species of a whole group of beetles (family Carabidae) many of which have some variation on a chemical defense mechanism, using the same basic chemicals (which exist in many beetles in varying amounts), but used in differing ways. The specific example that anti-evolutionists cite sprays an explosive mixture out of its abdomen in a fairly well aimed stream at its attackers, however there are other Carabid beetles that spray with less accurate aim, and others that merely excrete bad tasting chemicals out of their abdomens when attacked. There is a whole spectrum from fairly simple to fairly complex defense mechanisms. Anti-evolutionists only talk about the more complex variant.
This discussion of the human knee is another example of this sort of argument in a vacuum.
While I am not an expert in the comparative anatomies of the living non-human apes and humans, as far as I am aware there is no material difference between them. That is, every bone, muscle, ligament, tendon, and cartilage in the human knee has its corresponding representative in the knee of chimpanzees and the other great apes. Yes they are shaped somewhat differently. Yes they are proportioned differently. But as far as I know all the same parts are there.
As for fossil hominids, the knees of more advanced types like H. erectus (which are either "fully human" or "just apes" depending on what anti-evolutionist you talk to) seem to be virtually identical to those of H. sapiens. As for the knees of the more primitive species of Homo (H. habilis) and the australopithecines these become increasingly like those of living non-human apes the farther back in time one goes. Exactly the sort of thing one would predict if humans evolved from an "ape-like" ancestor. The knee of Australopithecus afaresis (which most anti-evolutionists say is "just an ape") retains a number of "ape-like" features but also has characteristics like those of later hominids including H. sapiens. In other words it is an intermediate form in this regard.
See The ICR and Lucy: Bearing False Witness Against Thy Neighbor for some comparative photos, or refer to any good text on human evolution for comparative illustrations. (See also Jim Lippards article at http://web.archive.org/web/20020606103226/www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html on fundamentalists' fraudulent claims about knee joints.)
Burgess does mention living apes briefly but only to dismiss them as being poor bipedal walkers. However this is a problem for his argument for irreducible complexity (IC), at least as I understand Michael Behe's (the person responsible for the recent popularity of this term) definition of the term, in that while the knees of living non-human apes are slightly different in form, and are not as efficient for use in bipedal walking as those of humans, they do work, and they can walk bipedally. If the ancestor of hominids (bipedal apes including H. sapiens), whose knee was essentially identical to the living non-human apes, could walk bipedally at all, then it would be possible for there to be a selective advantage for any slight modifications in their descendants which lead towards an increase in efficiency of bipedalism.
The human knee seems to me to be a poor example of an IC structure.
Some of Burgess' other arguments just seem nonsensical to me. For example he states:
"The knee joint presents a major challenge to the evolutionist because it is unique, and because there are no intermediate forms of joint between a condylar joint and the other two limb joints found in animals and humans - the ball and socket joint and the pivot joint."
I fail to understand Mr. Burgess' challenge here. Knee joints did not evolve from elbow, shoulder, or hip joints. Rather knee joints have been knee joints since their origin in the first tetrapods. The same applies to the other types of joints. So why would we expect to find "intermediate forms" between them?
It is a curious thing that Behe's principle of IC as an argument for design turns traditional arguments from design on their heads. No longer are those features of organisms that seem perfectly "sculpted" to suit their needs necessarily evidence for design. No longer are the features of organisms which are well designed from an engineering point of view necessarily evidence for design. Now, under Behe's IC principle of design, it doesn't matter how clunky, ungainly, and poorly designed from an engineering point of view something is, it only matters that it is supposedly irreducibly complex.
Apparently the "Designer" under this new design "theory" is a (supernatural) cosmic Rube Goldberg." (Rube Goldberg was an American cartoonist who, according to Wikipedia, "earned lasting fame for his 'Rube Goldberg machines' (exceedingly complex devices that perform simple tasks in very indirect and convoluted ways.")
My own comments on Burgess' paper is as follows:
Burgess states that, "Since a human characteristic is typically specified by one gene with about 1,000 chemical units of information, it requires many thousands of units of information in the genetic code to specify the essential design information of the four-bar hinge."
Unfortunately human characteristics are not specified by one gene. In general they are frequently and normally specified by multiple genes. Moreover, a single gene can be responsible for several traits; this is called pleiotropy.
He claims that, "Random gene mutations generally cause malfunctions and suffering in living organisms." They don't; for the most part they do not cause either malfunctions or suffering. Most are neutral or mildly deleterious in this respect.
Burgess also omits a key factor that natural selection acts on mutations that are deleterious. This is known as purifying or stabilising selection and is considered to be very common. Wikipedia states that this "lowers the frequency of alleles which have a deleterious effect on the phenotype (that is, lower fitness), until they are eliminated from the population. Purifying selection results in functional genetic features (e.g. protein-coding sequences or regulatory sequences) being conserved over time because of selective pressure against deleterious variants."
He states that "the knee joint presents a major challenge to the evolutionist because it is unique, and because there are no intermediate forms of joint between a condylar joint and the other two limb joints found in animals and humans - the ball and socket joint and the pivot joint."
Unfortunately our arms have not evolved from our legs or vice versa. There is no reason why there should be an intermediate form between the two.
Tim Chase also points out:
Is it the human knee which is unique, or is it simply the knee, animal or human? I think most people who see a problem with his thesis take it to be the human knee -- and I believe this is what he wants his naive, fundie readers to take away from it as well. But in critiquing his position, it is almost as if he has thrown up foil before a missile. The human knee isn't that different from the knees of earlier hominids, monkeys, or even cats. It is all basically a matter of degree. So it would seem, for the critic, that he means the animal knee to be unique -- and so where in time does one begin one's explanation of the knee?
He further adds that "it is interesting to note that some biology books describe the knee joint as a 'highly modified hinge joint", implying that the knee must have evolved from the simple pivot joint that exists in the elbow.
"The fact that evolution can in theory evolve characteristics that are non-critical is used by the evolutionist to give the impression that evolution can work. School textbooks often give examples of how a new colour of a creature such as a moth could evolve by mutation, and then say that with many mutations the moth could have evolved from a primitive creature. However, even though the colour of a moth may be important to its survival, the characteristic of colour is nevertheless a trivial one in terms of how it affects the functioning of organs and parts within the moth. Therefore, the example of the evolution of colour by mutation is not an example of evolution at all because no matter how many non-critical characteristics are evolved, they can never change one kind of functioning system into another kind of functioning system."
Camouflage against predators is not a trivial function; it is a vital function, just as the ability to fly or run away from predators is. It's vital because if it doesn't work the creature has its internal organs ruined – they get eaten by the predator. It's a seriously critical function.
Moreover as one gene mutation can affect several characteristics, there is, technically, no reason why a change in surface colour or pattern can't affect internal organs – and vice versa.
What Burgess is claiming is that simple functions are trivial and complex functions are critical. Which begs the question as to what is meant by trivial and critical and which are more critical than others. Are the teeth of a cat more critical or trivial to it than its rear knee joint and, if so, what criterion or criteria are used to determine this? Burgess fails to explain this glaring gap in his argument.
Burgess has concluded that evolution that can be identified isn't evolution at all because it is too simple. Evolution can only exists for complex functions which are likely to be irreducibly complex. But he is also saying that evolution cannot account for complex functions!
I'm afraid that Evolutionary Theory does not distinguish between complex and simple functions the way Burgess claims. It covers both the alleged simple and the alleged complex.
He adds that "there is no doubt that critical characteristics are obscured because evolutionists can only attempt to give trivial examples of evolution such as changes in colour." And the recently published evidence on the evolution of a bat's wing is not amongst these? Or the school books I learned from years back which used the example of an elephants trunk? Or that of a horse's hoof? And by what criteria are these trivial?
Here's another convoluted argument from Burgess: "The theory of evolution is analogous to proposing that one can take the engineering drawings of a simple pivot joint used in a motorbike steering wheel and evolve them into the drawings of the steering system of a four-wheeled vehicle. The information on the drawings is equivalent to the genetic code, and random photocopying errors in the information are analogous to mutations. The evolutionist believes that the random photocopying errors will sometimes produce a slightly better system, and that via selection, eventually the steering system of the motorbike will turn into a four-bar hinge and form the steering system of a four-wheeled vehicle!"
Nope, the theory of evolution says nothing of the sort. Mutation and natural selection in themselves are not predictive of any future feature. The theory predicts that organisms will evolve to adapt to changing conditions in the environment. Natural selection, which is basically the product of an insufficient food supply and other resources, rigorously selects appropriate mutations and rejects those that are not. There is no such mechanism for either inducing random variations in repeated photocopying of an engineering drawing and then rigorously filtering out the vast majority of them.
Moreover, the engineering drawing analogy is arse about tit. The Theory of natural selection is unpredictive in that it can't be used to predict the overall, in total, features of future animals. There is a high degree of randomness in development and, moreover, there is an external variable which is not predicted by the theory. It's called the environment.
Put another way, just as repeated photocopying of the aforementioned engineering drawing won't produce a drawing of the mechanism for 4W drive car, the theory of evolution won't define all the features of a future organism.
Moreover, the evidence seems to increasingly suggest that the genetic information including regulatory genes is itself facilitative of implementing changes through certain mutations. In other words, some mutations within parts of the genetic code are likely to have much bigger impacts that others. That implies it has a selective capability which contradicts the simplistic concept that evolution is just a product of random mutations and natural selection.
To make matters more complex mutations are reversible.
Moreover, the analogy between engineering drawings (and also operating instructions for a complex system like an aircraft) and the human genome is fallacious. Burgess just does not understand basic genetics. The genome is part of the human body, not an external description or set of instructions.
It's basically a set of self-replicating chemicals which generate growth and form by chemical reactions. It's akin to using yeast to produce bread or beer; its generative not descriptive.
It's not the recipe, nor the description, nor the instructions – it's part of the ingredients.
Put another way, a DNA string is a structure, it is extremely complex and is not completely robust under all circumstances, including dividing and replication; that lack of absolute robustness throughout the string is what allows mutations to happen. Environmental factors alone thus ensure that it cannot be completely robust and there are clearly other factors which account for this.
Burgess also claims that the human knee is unique and compares humans to apes. However, entirely absent from this statement is the obvious fact that modern man is not the only ape that has walked upright; there are loads of examples of apes that have knees very similar to what he calls mankind. So, er, what about Neanderthal Man or Homo heidelbergensis or Homo erectus or Australopithecus afarensis.
Burgess can't keep his religious opinions out of his pseudo-science. He claims that, "The human knee joint not only gives evidence of design but it also gives evidence of the infinite power and wisdom of God." One in four runners (including the author of this article in the past) can testify from first hand experience that the human knee does not testify to God's infinite power and wisdom. Its flaws are a serious problem for us.
Moreover, there is something utterly bogus about Burgess when he claims that "whether gene mutations are random (as atheists believe) or planned (as many theistic evolutionists believe)…."
This smacks innuendo and arrogance. The innuendo is that those who do not accept Burgess' opinions on religion are morally suspect and he is our self-appointed moral superior. It is deeply insulting and distressing.
Notes: (1) QUOTE (From "He made the stars also" By Dr. Stuart Burgess, Day One Publications (25 Oct 2001), ISBN-10: 1903087139, ISBN-13: 978-1903087138
PAGE 48: "Naturalistic explanations tend to be very complicated
The concepts of modern theoretical physics are extremely complicated and abstract. On the one hand, the interpretation that God spoke the stars into existence is very straightforward and can be understood by everyone. On the other hand, the secular Big Bang theory is incomprehensible to ordinary people. (Indeed, there is a case for arguing that Satan has deliberately made modern theoretical physics complicated in order to blind people about the truth of the origins of the Universe.) In the case of the young-Earth relativistic cosmology, it has abandoned straightforward instantaneous creation and has adopted a theory that is just as incomprehensible as the secular Big Bang theory. In fact, the relativistic cosmology theory is so complicated that there is little agreement about the validity of the theory even amongst creationist experts in mathematics.16 If experts in mathematics cannot agree on the theory, then how can ordinary people begin to understand the theory or make a judgement about whether the theory is right?" (Taken from http://www.the-brights.net/forums/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t1491.html.)
Here is a review of the book on Amazon by one Emo Bright. (Emo Bright is a Bright and this is a nom de plume.)
Craft, Spacecraft and Witchcraft. By Emo Bright, 14 Nov 2004
Reviewer: A reader
Anyone reading this review who hasn't heard of Dr. Stuart Burgess should perhaps ponder why this should be. Almost certainly they will have heard of: Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. They may even have heard of Paul Dirac who was an undergraduate in the Mechanical Engineering Department that Dr. Burgess now heads at Bristol University having moved on from his position in the European Space Agency.
If any credibility at all is to be granted to the claims made in this book, then Dr. Burgess surely deserves to figure, at least somewhere, in the roll call of honour and glory that is so familiar to the scientifically aware portion of the public. The reason for this is that Dr. Burgess claims to have overthrown everything that these illustrious gentlemen stand for ( and a lot more besides) and has replaced it with his own, all embracing, "Theory of everything".
He backs up his claims, not with meticulous mathematics, oh no, nothing like that. He uses that trusted weapon of mediaeval scientific endeavour that perhaps contributed to the adoption of the phrase "Dark Ages" when reference needs to be made to the centuries where it figured significantly in the battle to impose rigid religious dogma on all minds. Yes! On Page 48, Dr. Burgess points the finger at our cosmological heroes and cries:
"Witchcraft! A case can be made that these people are in league with Satan!"
He goes on to claim that the clear evidence for use in such a case is that modern cosmological theory it "too complicated" for "ordinary people" and they can't understand it.
This heartfelt plea obviously comes from Dr. Burgess' heart because he goes on to demonstrate that he is himself, most definitely, one of those ordinary people who don't understand modern cosmology. In fact, and in spite of his proud boast of involvement in the space program, his understanding clearly doesn't even make it into the ranks of the many scientifically aware school children who have only a slight interest in space and merely an inkling of just why A. Einstein Esq. lends his name for use as an iconic representation of supreme intellectual genius.
Dr. Burgess achieves this magnificent downgrading of his own status via a great feat of misunderstanding the banality of which is breathtaking. On page 59 he includes a neat little diagram in support of his argument on Page 61 that the Universe has an edge and that our Galaxy is approximately at its centre.
As any of the afore mentioned school children will surely attest, this assertion violates the PRINCIPLE of relativity which demands that all points in the universe must be equivalent. So the universe has no centre and it has no edge.
It was this principle that Einstein started with 100 years ago and built his two monumentally important theories of relativity on the solid theoretical foundation that it provides.
So Dr. Burgess is asking us to accept that Einstein and all competent cosmologists who have spent the last 100 years marking his homework are wrong in principle and should have blessed themselves and gone with the arguments in this book.
Having replaced all of modern cosmology this with his formula ("God did it") Dr. Burgess rushes on to more important matters and lambastes Science Fiction and those who suppose that life might just exist elsewhere in the cosmos. His argument is that there can't be any aliens because that would mean that Humans are not his God's "special creatures".
In another display of breathtaking banality Dr. Burgess denounces these characters and Science Fiction generally on the grounds that they "promote a false view of the physical world" thereby demolishing the dreams of billions world-wide who are hoping to beam up to the Starship Enterprise any time soon.
Then, in a really spectacular "about face", he finishes off by reminding us that cauldrons, pointed hats, black cats, and broomsticks are all too real and in daily use by modern scientists in the practise of their craft.
Modern Science has not the slightest need to even shrug when confronted by nonsense of this kind. However, you have to wonder why it is that other Christians stand by and let Dr. Burgess tell the world what their creed stands for.
