Today warfare is engaged in so many ways. One of these wars is constantly being fought on the intellectual battle ground. Opposing philosophies and varying cosmologies has lead to an era of intellectual battle. One of these battles in particular is between Evolution and Intelligent Design. With debates in courts over whether or not ID should be included in Public School Science curriculum and with myriads of books being written in relevance to the topic, the battle has manifested itself more today than it ever has.
The debate began with the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”. Most pro-evolutionists stick to the basic Darwinian definition that living things originated through descent with modification. With that basic principle, modern evolutionists have developed a case for the universe created by chance, and without a designer. Within Origin itself, Darwin openly admits that if certain things were discovered, that his theory would fall. That was the challenge. The ID movement answers that challenge. While researching this topic I stumbled upon an article written by evolutionist John R. Staver. Responding to that article may be an appropriate way to survey the contentions of ID.The article “Evolution and Intelligent Design” written in November of 2003 takes an unfair and uneducated stab at the ID movement.
The main argument is to explain away the ID movement as a non-scientific argument with no empirical evidence. This is a surprising contention to read in light of the myriads of ID writings that have come forth in the past decade. In no way does Mr. Staver engage any of the findings of the ID movement, and the way he uses ID terms so loosely implies that he hasn’t really done his research on the ID argument. Actually the only argument he uses against the validity and reality of the ID argument is that in a recent “article” search of scientific journals, he found a only a few speaking of “Intelligent design” in relation to the thousands of article’s found on ‘evolution.” His finding is hardly an argument against the validity of the ID claim. (funny side note: If you look at the front of his article in the right bottom hand corner under the scilink symbol, the key words to bring up the article were “Darwin and Natural Selection”, but yet the article is about Intelligent Design)
At the onset of his article he claims that his article would “document the lack of evidence in ID theory.” (p.33) Mr. Staver’s claim is both unwarranted and unsupported through his article. There are many strong arguments brought forward from the ID community that evolutionists have yet to answer sufficiently. To show just a sample of the treasure chest of scientific arguments that ID has presented to evolutionists, we’ll examine two of the more popular contentions.
The first of the two strong arguments against evolution is that of the discontinuity of the fossil record . Many evolutionists, including Darwin and Richard Dawkins, believe in the gradual evolution of species. In order for this theory to hold true there must be a vast amount of intermediate species connecting one species to another. It would make sense then that a fossil record spanning over hundreds of millions of years would consistently include these intermediate species. In chapter 8 of Michael Denton’s book, Evolution: a theory in crisis, he shows how the fossil record indeed does not support the evolutionary theory simply because a consistent fossil record of these transitional forms has not been found. Denton points out that “Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is as about discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. The intermediates have remained as elusive as and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record” (p.162, Crisis) Denton points out that there are gaps in the fossil records that point to the truth that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms including invertebrate life, plant life, vertebrates, amphibia, reptiles, and mammals all appear abruptly, seemingly unlinked to other groups by transitional or intermediate forms.
A strong support of this reality is given by G.G Simpson, a leading paleontologist, who points out that one of the most prominent features of the fossil record is the fact that many new organisms appear abruptly. In this Simpson admits that the gaps in the fossil record between species show “that the fossils provide none of the crucial transitional forms required by evolution.” (p.165, Crisis) An example showing that there is an absence of transitional forms in the fossil record between two species, one of which is supposed to be the ancestral type of the other is seen in the fish - amphibia transformation. It is often assumed that amphibia evolved from fish. However, even though the first amphibian had well developed limbs capable of terrestrial motion, when it is placed alongside its presumed fish ancestor, it becomes very obvious that there is a large gap between the amphibia and its nearest supposed ancestral type. The fossil record lacks the transitional forms between the two. Furthermore, this in no way is an isolated incident. Many examples of different vertebrate class species being dramatically varied from their presumed ancestral types occur, as is with many aquatic vertebrate groups like whales and seals. With the continuing lack of intermediate species between two supposedly related species, there will always be a major flaw in that major aspect of evolutionary theory.
The second argument comes from biochemist Michael Behe. Mr. Staver actually mentions Behe in the beginning of his article speaking of his famed “irreducible complexity” concept. Staver actually gives a basic definition of the concept and then moves on to a new topic as if mentioning Behe’s concept would automatically discredit itself. On the contrary, Mr. Staver actually opened himself to criticism by mentioning an argument that the evolutionist community to this day has trouble explaining away. Behe does great detail in explaining this argument in his book Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. An irreducibly complex system is explained as “ a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.” (p.39, Black Box) Just as a mousetrap cannot properly work without every one of its parts and in no way was it made by slight modifications of a precursor system, so too are there biochemical and cellular processes that relate analogously to the irreducible complexity of the mousetrap.
One of the arguments that Behe presents is the irreducible complexity of the cilium. A cilium, which looks like a piece of hair, is the structure that allows some cells to swim. In liquid, the cilium moves the cell like how an oar moves a boat. Sperm, for example, use cilia to swim. Also, a large number of cilia are used by the respiratory tract to push mucus up the throat for the expulsion of foreign particles. When looking at the specifics of how the cilium functions, even in a simplified fashion, its irreducible complexity is undeniable. When considering this, Darwin’s theory of gradual of evolution is once again brought into serious question. His theory has no way of explaining a “gradual evolution” of a system (ciliary system) that is so necessary and so complex. In fact, the details of how the cilium works is still a black box, a mystery, to scientists even now. To see the irreducible complexity of the cilium one can look at what components are needed for even one function of the cilium, ciliary motion.
Cilia are part of a class of swimming systems. These swimming systems, including things ranging from something as small as the cilium all the way to things like a commercial ship, require three primary things in common for its motion: some sort of paddle that contacts the water, a motor or some source of energy, and something to link the two together. The following components are needed for ciliary motion; First a cilium requires microtubules which are necessary for ciliary motion. Without them, none of the hair-like strands would be able to slide. The microtubules would be like the cilium’s paddles that contact the water and push against it. Next it needs a motor, without which the microtubules would lie motionless. In ciliary motion the energy source behind moving the system are the dynein arms. Furthermore, the cilium requires connectors to tug on to neighboring ciliary strands which turn the sliding motion of the ciliary strands into a bending motion, which ultimately keeps the ciliary structure from falling apart. Its the nexin arms that act as linkers between the motor force of one microtubule to a neighboring one. Just the process of ciliary motion requires all those complex parts to work together perfectly. Without any one of those parts the process of ciliary motion simply just does not exist.
Behe demonstrates Irreducible complexity to be simple criterion by which we can detect an intelligent agent at the root of a particular design. He says that “design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components” (p.99, Signs of Intelligence) Though those arguments are far from “proving” intelligent design, they do help to show that ID is indeed a valid theory, based on real scientific findings. The question that Mr. Starver would most definitely respond with to this paper so far is “why then do a majority of scientists today pass off Id as futile and non-scholarly?” Regardless of the evidence pointing out some major flaws in evolutionary theory and pointing in favor of intelligent design, many well known and well established scientists still hold strong to the Darwinian theories of evolution, primarily the concept of Natural Selection. Even Darwin points out though that there certain limitations to natural selection. For example, he sees it impossible for natural selection to cause a modification in a species that would be exclusively for the betterment of another species. He agrees that if this were to happen that it would “annihilate” his theory (p.190, Origin). Darwin also agrees that Natural Selection would never produce in a species a modification that would be more injurious than beneficial to it. It makes sense that it would not bring about a modification that would lead towards a species’ extinction. As Darwin states : “Natural Selection tends only to make each organic being as perfect as, or slightly more perfect than, the other inhabitants of the same country with which it comes into competition.” (p.191, Origin). And though natural selection seems completely acceptable on a micro level, the evidence supported by the contributing authors in Signs such as irreducible complexity and the lack of evolutionary support in the fossil record, brings up some very concrete reasons that Darwin’s simple theory of natural selection can not explain how new species came to be. So the question of what else drives these scientists to hold on to such beliefs, still remains. To answer that one needs to consider the state of society today and materialistic cosmology that permeates the science world.
Such a question brings us back to the work of Dr. Wiker and his views of the effects of Darwinian evolution on morality which I will address in the next installment of this series.
To be continued . . . (be on the lookout for part #3 of this series)
3 comments:
I'm left a bit confused by your post. You declare yourself Catholic yet appear to accept "intelligent design" as well. This bemuses me because I thought Catholics accepted evolutionary theory and it appears, to me at least, that intelligent design is the anthesis of evolution.
You emphasize the difference is based on either the presence or absence of a creator. This is the general consensus of ordinary people. To scientists the difference is based on natural history, not theology. Most adherents of intelligent design also accept the biblical notion that all life was created simutaneously, but man was created seperately. Classical evolution states both these assumptions are false.
I find it ironic that one of the fundamental arguements in favor of intelligent design springs from the intricate complexity of biochemical pathways. If one examines the molecule responcible for this complexity one soon sees that most life on earth is at least 50% identical in terms of it's DNA. The fact a man and a chimpansee are 98% identical strongly suggests both species are the descendants of a common ancestor.
Another arguement often cited by opponents of evolution are missing "missing links". Scientists explain that fossils rarely form and are only abundant in large, established populations. Hence, to follow the theme of your post, there are going to be both fish and amphibian fossils, but no "4 legged fish". Transitional forms never establish themselves and are never abundant; hence, there are "gaps" in the fossil record.
However, many of these "missing links" have been found. There is a rather obvious link between reptiles and birds. Fish and amphibians? The creature is known as acanthostega. Basically, it is a fish with four legs.
Apart from the purely philosophical ones, the only good scientfic counter arguement to evolution is questioning the age of fossils. Scientists use two forms of dating systems which measure the amount of radioactive compounds which naturally accumulate in living organisms. After they die, these elements decay at a constant rate; hence measuring their abundance gives an indication of how long something has been dead. However, the assumption is made that the levels of these substances were the same when the creature died as they are today. If they were not, then fossils could be far younger than scientists speculate and hence this lends support to the assumption the earth is only 6000 years old. Of course the opposite could be equally true - the fossils could be far older.
To me, the proof is simply a knowledge of which creatures are more sophisticated than others, and the fact radioactive dating indicates simple life forms are older than more complicated ones.
Since, to me at least, there are few scientific counter arguements to evolution, the real issue is the presence of a creator. One can arrive at a quick answer by assuming the creativity is naturally inherent in matter itself and is mearly an attribute. There is no reason not to believe in a creative force of some kind, even one apart from matter. However, knowing what I know about reality in terms of science, I certainly don't think of God in human terms and to suggest the universe was specially created for humans alone is ludicrous to me.
Finally, there is an issue few talk about, although everyone knows about. We have decoded the genetic alphabit well enough to recite the letters. Like any child we will eventually learn how to actually read the words. When this occurs, pork chops will grow on trees. In other words, man will have usurped the creator. Most christians find this notion too terrible to contemplate, but it is happening all around us allready. Genetic modification is now being used routinely to enhance crops and more and more pharmaceuticals are the results of bacteria synthesizing them because of foriegn genetic implants.
What is going to happen when humans start to modify themselves in this fashion? Jokes of "designer genes" aside, I think at this point we will have proven a notion inherent in many world religions. There is no God because He is us.
We are God.
Aloha Roger,
I will respond to your post in whole when time permits but I would like to address your comment about being catholic and accepting 'intelligent design' as opposed to common evolutionary theory.
In Pope John Paul II's "MESSAGE TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES:
ON EVOLUTION" which you can read in full here
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
The Pope makes it very clear that as long as we understand that it is God and God alone that infuses the human soul apart from evolution, then the church in theory sees no conflict between faith and science on this matter. Namely in the sense that God could have created our world through a process which we would label 'evolution'.
However the Pope repeatedely points out that the Evolutionary 'theory' is just that, a theory and as such it must be constantly tested and challenged.
I would contend that 'Intelligent Design' offers that challenge.
So to clarify the catholic position on evolution . . . you may hold to most of the contensions of evolution without seeing it as contradiction to the catholic faith but it is also just as valid to question and challenge evolutionary theory.
This also means that catholic scientists have a responsibility to answer these challeneges and continuely reflect on their scientific conclusions in light of new scientific research
Thank you for your response and I will address the rest of your post when I get to a comfortable desk and chair,,, Im in between teaching classes right now.
Pax et bonum
Roger,
I hope to address some of the points you make in my future installments of this series specifically
1)The concept of the universe being created specially for man, which you say is 'ludicrous'.
- To support my contension Ill detail a couple of studies including the studies compiles in the book, Rare Earth. Scientists Peter Ward, and Donald Brownlee, using modern scientific disciplines have come to the conclusion that there is mounting evidence that suggest that the conditions necessary for complex life are exceedingly rare, and the probability of obtaining them all at the same place and time, is minute at best. It seems that this view of the universe with our earth as special and unique would point toward the anthropic nature of the universe.
2) The concept of man becoming our own 'God'.
- The very concept championed by the book, Moral Darwinism by Dr. Ben Wiker, which I plan on reviewing for very next installment of the series address the very idea of man attempting to ursurp God. It is in fact the only plausible end of a universe created by chance. . . And as you can even recognize the reality of a 'creative force' as you say, a universe by mere chance is not a scientifically, philosophically or logical conclusion
With regard to your assertion that 'many' intermediate species or 'missing links' have been found in support of the fossil record supporting gradual modification over time. . . it simply is not the case. I would be interested to read some documentation on the 'many' missing links that you assert have been found.
A mere handful of these supposed 'missing links' proves nothing. We witness mutations almost everyday . . . and though there does exist the argument for small modification within a species over time (micro evolution) there would need to exist a substantial amount of these intermediate species to be discovered to apply the evidence to actual speciation. And the fossil record simply doesnt provide that needed amount of evidence
Post a Comment