Logic Times

Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design

Posted by Aslan, 04/11/05, 10:51pm. Comments (13)

Part One: Where the Theories Fail

The evolution debate has intensified in recent years. This debate – which sees those espousing intelligent design opposed by scientists who are aghast that anyone could question the "proven" theory of Charles Darwin – appears to have only two sides, one of which must be correct.

Not so. Both are wholly inadequate.

Darwinism may be one of the weakest theories ever adopted by the scientific community. Blind adherence to its precepts suggests it is a form of secular religion at whose altar scientists have gleefully sacrificed the scientific method and a sizeable portion of their credibility all in the hopes of vanquishing theism.

Intelligent Design (which I shall assume encompasses classic Creationism as a subset) limits God and declares Him to be both inconsistent and deceptive. I exclude from this criticism those versions of Intelligent Design that are satisfied with God beginning creation at the point of the initial singularity (Big Bang).

This essay series will argue that a hybrid theory – Punctuated Creation - satisfies the demands of both logic and observation.

In brief, where do these two pre-eminent theories go wrong?

Darwinism – Microevolution Writ Large

Darwinism is a theory that got too big for the supporting data. A marvelous theory of microevolution – interspecies variation via natural selection (think of dog breeds) – it is unsustainable as a theory of macroevolution (interspecies variation via natural selection that gradually produces new species). Gradualism requires unlimited plasticity of species, which cannot be demonstrated in breeding experiments. Waiting at the end of every breeding experiment that continually introduces variant traits is sterility or reversion to type.

Gradualism also requires a far better fossil record, which is pathetically lacking. Consider the words of reputable (pro-evolution) paleontologists, including the man himself:

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" - Charles Darwin
"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" - Stephen Gould, PhD
"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." - Colin Patterson, PhD
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." - David B. Kitts, PhD

How about dramatic environmental selectivity? In the same environment where we see a mudpuppy developing a 3-pound brain, we see closely related species not changing at all. The same intense environmental pressures that transformed an amphibian into homo sapiens sapiens couldn't seem to budge a cockroach from being a cockroach, or evolve the reptile world much at all. For every dramatic leap in evolution - the addition of lungs, brachiation, opposable thumbs – there exist dozens of species in the same ecosystem that didn't even change color over hundreds of millions of years.

Gradualism fails every challenge presented by macroevolution, from the fossil record, to breeding experiments, to selectivity, to irreducible complexity (a nasty riddle not presented here). Yet most uninformed adults believe this clever theory of microevolution to be Truth, to be an unshakable theory of the origin of Man, as if microevolution and macroevolution are as interchangeable as their labels might indicate.

Creationism and Intelligent Design – A Limited and Deceptive God

The foundation of Intelligent Design is divine intervention to explain, in large part, speciation. The irrational fervor of the Darwin crowd is fueled by their conclusion that such intervention is not required and therefore compatible with an atheistic universe. Theists laugh at scientists clinging to the fragments of this broken theory like shipwreck survivors clutching a piece of floating wood, but then they go too far. Just because the boat is not seaworthy does not mean there isn’t good wood there. Supporters of intelligent design mistakenly view this scientific failure as evidence partially supporting the strict Biblical idea of a tinkering God.

What is science?

(sci·ence - the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena - Dictionary.com)

Science is not something that stands independent of a Creator, but is a rational system for describing our universe. Indeed, science is one method of classifying God’s creation. The very existence, proliferation and success of science demonstrates that there is a mechanistic order to the universe. As our understanding of the world around us grows, what was once confusing and baffling reveals itself in the form of a system that Man can comprehend, model and employ in the prediction of phenomena. Those aspects of our physical world that we do not today understand – evolution, for example - we can reasonably expect to be similarly systematic in their operation.

A claim, therefore, that God actively intervened to create the plant and animal species defies logic because God is certainly capable of evolution. Does anyone suggest that God intervenes because He was unable to design and launch a natural system that produces a wide array of life? And if He is capable of evolution and to date His creation can be understood as systematic, why would anyone expect a radical deviation for explaining this one aspect of creation? Why would one insist that the mechanism for speciation was managed through non-scientific direct intervention? If such was the norm in our experience, then this would be sensible.

(Of course the answer for many is that it is in the Bible, if the Bible is taken literally. I am not going to persuade anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of Scripture over an inerrant one. The rest, stay tuned.)

Part Two: Where the Theories Succeed

Comments

1: Paul5388

April 12, 2005 12:15am EST

I don't know if you saw this article…

In violation of current genetic theory, they found a significant percentage of the plant grandchildren had genetic information identical to that of the grandparent, but not the parent.

But how could the child acquire genetic information from its grandparent, if the parent had lost it? Lolle and Pruitt postulate that the “lost” genetic information securely resides outside the standard genome and is only retrieved under particular circumstances when it may be beneficial to restore genomic sequences back to an ancestral state. So, the information was not lost, but rather “hidden”—from scientists anyway. (Excerpt from a National Science Foundation news release here.)

This concept is going to be hard for gradualist or any other evolutionist to get around.

{Aslan: Wow. This stops evolution cold. As I do endorse a non-Darwin version of evolution, it stops the second part of my essay cold, too. LOL. I can’t let that stop me though!

Notice the theory put forth by these investigators and its service of a bias. "Lolle and Pruitt postulate that the ‘lost’ genetic information securely resides outside the standard genome and is only retrieved under particular circumstances…" What the heck is that? Such a conclusion feeds a bias: that evolution is correct, so there must be a mechanism of retaining these inherited traits. An equally valid – but never to be uttered – conclusion would be that natural selection as a mechanism of speciation is incorrect.}

2: JW

April 12, 2005 9:43am EST

{Aslan: Due to the length of JW’s thorough and thoughtful response, I am going to intersperse my observations throughout his comments.}

Aslan, you might want to reconsider your position on Darwinism before you post Part Two of that article. The four quotes you use to establish that "Darwinism is a theory that got too big for the evidence" are all well-known examples of a creationist practice called "quote-mining," wherein the entire published works of well-known scientists are scanned for any statement that can be interpreted as against evolutionary theory, even if it has to be taken out of context and then distorted. For example:

You quoted Stephen Jay Gould as follows:

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" - Stephen Gould, PhD

You need to take note of the exact wording here. In this passage (which was written almost thirty years ago, by the by), Gould was arguing against the then-standard gradualist form of evolutionary theory and in favor of his own idea of punctuated equilibrium. He didn't intend to cast doubt on evolutionary theory in general. But you don't have to take my word for it; you can take his:

"We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled: "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible." -- Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," in his book Hen’s Teeth and Horse's Toes.

{Aslan: You make the mistake of assuming I am arguing against all forms of evolution. You will notice my careful criticism of "Darwinism" and not of evolution. I happen to be a fan of the late Dr. Gould and consider Punctuated Equillibrium the best likely explanation for speciation – with some qualifiers (to be developed). So, since I am setting up a theory that embraces aspects of his theory, it would make sense for me to quote him – in context – as recognizing the limitations of gradulaism.}

{JW's comment continued here)