Dear Editor
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is being taught in schools as the mechanism that explains the grand level of biological complexity we observe in the world today.
Firstly, I would like to define my terms and spell out what definition of the ToE is that I am talking about.
The full contemporary definition of the ToE is comprised of 3 theses:
- The thesis that change over time occurs in species
- The thesis of universal common descent
- The thesis of natural selection on random mutation
(for a great expose of the above thesis I highly recommend Stephen Meyer’s book, Darwin’s Doubt.)
The above definition is also loosely known as Neo-Darwinism, because the 3rd thesis is now a function of knowledge gleaned in the last century after Charles Darwin’s passing, namely that of natural selection on random mutation of genes in DNA as opposed to natural selection on random ‘variation’ as per Darwin’s day (he didn’t have a good microscope and didn’t know of the existence of DNA, in fact he thought that cells were blobs of protoplasm and that’s it!).
From hereon-in, the term ‘ToE’ refers to the 3rd thesis of the above definition, because it is the thesis responsible for sparking the most controversy.
Being a historical science, evolutionary biology is reliant on examining the evidence for the ToE and deriving an Inference as to the Best Explanation (IBE), much like a CSI crime scene. It does not enjoy the luxury of having being observed first hand, nor does it enjoy the luxury of being repeatable in a laboratory (that would take millions of years in most cases!), which is why the standard scientific method is out of the question. What this means is that the method of inquiry used in evolutionary biology is that of philosophy, and not the scientific method.
As progress is made in biochemistry and biology and the like, weaknesses of the ToE are mounting. As such, websites like Dissent from Darwin are popping up, with many notable scientists giving up on the theory. Ideas like Irreducible Complexity (IR) and events like the Cambrian Explosion as well as the poverty of the fossil record pose serious questions that need real answers. More recent work such as Darwin Devolves by Michael Behe, question whether the mechanism of natural selection on random mutation, the latter of which can be harmful to the organism or lead to loss in function (like the polar bear losing the pigment gene, which inadvertently gives it the survival advantage of being camouflaged in snow, critical at cub age), can actually create whole new body plans.
Quite simply, the ToE as an IBE is lacking in terms of explanatory scope and explanatory power, two criteria that any good theory should satisfy to warrant much credibility. Another criteria that the ToE fails is the criteria of contrive. In holding to the ToE one is expected to automatically adopt a new belief, namely that abiogenesis actually happened, that life came from non-life. This fails the Principle of Analogy/Uniformity test, nowhere has it ever been observed that you can get life from non-life. Ever. However, we see that life comes from life, aka biogenesis, all the time.
In the spirit of subscribing to objective, impartial, factual and unbiased science, it is perhaps a good time to complement the ToE as an explanatory hypothesis of evolutionary biology with another competing scientific theory, namely the Theory of Intelligent Design (ID Theory).
ID Theory proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as chance or natural selection. Such was the origin of information, in this case the origin of information in DNA.
Analogically, this is what forensic investigators do when they hypothesize a murder as opposed to a natural death. The evidence is then examined and an inference is drawn from the cumulative case. The hypothesis of murder (agency) is either accepted or rejected (in favour of chance/nature). The same goes for an investigator looking into a matter of possible arson. The hypothesis is that someone was behind the fire and not a natural accident. It is up to the cumulative evidence and the inference thereof to successfully reject or affirm the hypothesis of agency.
In the context of evolutionary biology, ID Theory posits that there is an intelligence behind the origin of the biological information contained in living things. What this implies, is that the creation of biological information did not come about as a function of a blind, mindless and unguided process, but rather that there was agency behind it. So as opposed to a bottom-up process ID Theory proposes that the origin of biological information in living things was a function of a top-down process. We recognise that past and current experience confirms that it is only agency that can generate information, and it is by nothing other than agency that we observe the generation of information. This is at the heart of ID Theory, that we do not observe any other item, apart from agency, capable of generating information. So, in conforming to the Principle of Uniformity/Analogy we must posit a mind as possibly being behind the origin of biological information in living things.
Is ID Theory scientific? Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
What ID Theory does not do is posit the God of the bible as the agent, it merely proposes that intelligence is behind the feature (like the origin of biological information) at hand. You would have to show that the agent behind the feature at hand is God, but that is another case altogether.
What ID Theory does do is open the door for other theories to be explored, like the Fred Hoyle’s theory of interstellar grains and Panspermia for example.
ID Theory articles have been published in peer reviewed articles. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Complexity, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Physics Essays, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology, Journal of Bacteriology, Annual Review of Genetics, and many others.
ID Theory’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves, and is receiving, serious consideration by the scientific community. As at 2019 there are around 100 peer reviewed publications on ID Theory in credible journals. You can check some out here: ID-Peer-Review-July-2017.
In another more recent shock blow for Darwin’s ToE, two intellectual juggernauts, Yale Professor and computer scientist David Gelernter and also Dr. David Berlinski, have given up hope for the ToE as mounting evidence against it sways them. You can read more about David Gelernter’s decision to give up on Darwin here. You can read more on David Berlinski’s anti-Darwinian stance here.
Leave a comment