Similarities in the Genetic Code
Richard Dawkins responded to a question of Phillip Johnson regarding how he knows that similarities in various creatures establishes common ancestry:
… the reason we know for certain we are all related, including bacteria, is the universality of the genetic code and other biochemical fundamentals. Philosophical commitment to materialism and reductionism is true, but I would prefer to characterize it as a philosophical commitment to real explanation as opposed to complete lack of explanation, which is what you espouse.
First of all, that universal genetic code is not truly universal. But more importantly, biochemical similarities do not prove common ancestry. Dawkins did not reach the conclusion of common ancestry based on scientific experimentation and observation. He did so on the basis of his “philosophical commitment to materialsim and reductionism”. Biochemical similarities are an observation that is made about the world around us. How do we account for those similarities? Is common ancestry the only answer? No! Similarities may be evidence of a common ancestry, but may just as reasonably be evidence of a common designer. How does one decide between the two? The answer is given on the basis of philosophy and not by science. Johnson rightly concludes:
By appealing to the philosophical question of what constitutes a real explanation, Dawkins had conceded that the fundamental question was outside of the professional domain of biology. Of course, materialist reductionists want a reductionist explanation of everything, but that is merely a subjective preference with which neither philosophers nor citizens in general have any obligation to agree.
I have recently listened to a series of lectures called “The Concerto” and am now listening to a series called “The Symphony”. Both series of lectures discuss the work of Beethoven. There are certain characteristics which may be found in the various symphonies of Beethoven. Since all nine symphonies of Beethoven share common musical characterisics, it is obvious that these symphonies had no composer. Right? Of course not, we immediately see the faulty reasoning in reaching such a conclusion. Observed similarities require interpretation. Philosophy provides the framework within which to reach conclusions about those similarities. Scientific naturalism is limited and hamstrung in its efforts to reach the truth because the most obvious explanation is ruled out a priori. Intelligent Design is open to all possibilities and follows the evidence where it may lead.