Posted on 04/16/2019 5:55:59 AM PDT by Heartlander
While Christians have long challenged Charles Darwin’s theory of undirected evolution, few appreciate the true extent of the challenge beyond the church. Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s theory is inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.
Ben Stein documented a crackdown within the academy on criticism of Darwin in his 2008 documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” While this might explain why the public rarely hears of challenges to Neo-Darwinism, the documentary centered on intelligent design. But the growing discontent in academia is from secular naturalists.
Defining evolution is key. At the basic level of change over time, even Young Earth biblical creationists agree. At its most specific level of the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection, many legitimately question evolutionary theory as it stands. The word is often used interchangeably without distinction, but even when used technically in academic biologist circles, real skepticism exists about the theory.
A controversial letter to Nature in 2014 signaled the mounting concern, however slow and cautious, among thoughtful professional biologists. Other works by atheist authors like “What Darwin Got Wrong” and “Mind and Cosmos” find “fatal flaws” in the theory and assert it is “almost certainly false.”
Another project, The Third Way, seeks to avoid a false choice between divine intervention (which it outright rejects) and the Neo-Darwinian model (which it finds unsupported in the face of modern molecular theory) while presenting evidence to improve evolution theory beyond Neo-Darwinism. Some even believe billions of years have not been adequate for Darwinian theory to accomplish current complexity, as the theory currently exists.
This dissatisfaction is a matter of public record, even if it lacks public attention, and despite the narrative running contrary. Indeed dedicated Neo-Darwinists often say “no serious scientists disagree” or “only creationists have problems.” These contentions are increasingly disproven.
The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution. Rather, they find problems with the explanatory value of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing, and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.
In fact, they want to help Darwin, not tear him down. That he needs help is news to the academy.
Professor Kevin Laland, author of the Nature letter insisting on “urgent” rethinking of evolutionary theory, has described the need for a paradigm shift. He recognizes the pushback from the scientific establishment, but he and his colleagues forge a path forward nonetheless with rigorous work on their model of Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES).
This is an update to the mid-20th-century Modern Synthesis, which patched up Neo-Darwinian theory with then-modern information. Since then, understanding of complexity has grown such that Laland and others believe EES or another paradigm is necessary to keep up.
Laland explained, “The EES is a minority position, but not as small a minority as it is often portrayed. It is also gaining ground.” EES is not the only naturalist supplement or revision of Neo-Darwinism, but joins several other embattled factions in the academy, including The Third Way.
“As you may surmise, there is a lot of politics in these debates. Traditionalists have a track record of characterising more progressive researchers as a small group of extremists,” Leland added. Explaining why it is difficult to gain traction, he continued, “support for our position comes from academic fields on the periphery of evolutionary biology, such as evolutionary developmental biology, ecological developmental biology, paleontology, botany, and the human sciences, while traditionalists dominate evolutionary genetics.”
After publishing in Nature, Laland received more than 1,000 emails in support from the academic community. This number is huge for a critique of such a longstanding accepted theory. In the five years since the Nature letter, support has also only grown.
The leading critics have been intelligent design supporters, who are looked down on by naturalists. But as each group adds to the scientific literature, certain critiques and findings inevitably bolster or redirect the research of the other.
The effects go at least one way. Following work and theories of Stephen Jay Gould, Michael Denton helped shape a generation of skeptics with his 1985 book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.” An evolutionist and agnostic, Denton has continued his criticism.
In the past decade, the works of professor Michael Behe, Steven Meyer, and others have given more life to the debate on the national stage. In “Darwin Devolves,” Behe points to the process of mutations to describe the inadequacy of an unguided materialist process to add information. Meyer explores the Cambrian explosion and the complexity of the cell to show the biodiversity and complexity we observe, and notes that natural processes have never been observed to produce such results.
Importantly, these two men, and many others, believe in the standard multibillion-year timeline for the Earth and make their findings based on deduction of natural evidence rather than starting from authority in scripture or elsewhere. The growth of the intelligent design community is noteworthy, but not as interesting as those who are apart from it, secular, and nonetheless find Darwinian evolution to contain serious flaws.
Behe explained that, “Based on conversations with my own colleagues at Lehigh [University], dozens of other biologists, and news stories in journals I would guesstimate that a third or more of biologists are quite skeptical that Darwin’s theory explains all of biology.” The growing literature speaks for itself.
Paul Nelson told Stein that, “One-on-one at a scientific meeting after the third or fourth beer, my experience has been that many evolutionary biologists will say ‘Yeah, this theory’s got a lot of problems.’” While anecdotal, this is echoed by many in academia, both within intelligent design, and more importantly outside of it.
While maintaining his field is not in crisis, and insisting on nuance, Leland notes, “I think the numbers issue depends strongly on subtle details of how you frame the question. A good proportion would probably agree that the causal bases of evolution are more complex than commonly portrayed in the textbooks.”
Nuance and framing are important, and along with traditional pressures, make estimates of the Neo-Darwin critics incredibly difficult to conclude. One approach is to simply seek signatures on a simple scientific statement of skepticism. Several hundred PhDs have signed. However, the association with intelligent design and possible academic consequences keeps many from signing.
While intelligent design gets a bad rap, such titans as Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins have espoused the same tenets. Still, many immediately and falsely link intelligent design with Christian divinity and stay far away.
The Third Way is highly exclusive to maintain purity and preempt criticism. Not only are religious believers excluded, but the platform is invite-only. The isolated clusters of scientists averse to associating with one another, or too set on their preferred nuance, lend credence to the traditionalist Neo-Darwin assertion that only a tiny fringe minority, if that, exists.
The plain truth from the literature, conferences, expert perception, and a bit of anecdote for color, is that current Neo-Darwinism is far from the untouchable theory it is lauded to be. Not only this, but it has serious and increasing skeptics and challengers from within the secular scientific community.
When adding in supporters of intelligent design, which is religion-neutral, the numbers begin to expand rapidly. While there are serious, scientific, and peer-reviewed studies from this group, it does not rock the boat as much as the secular material naturalists. The goal is not to abandon Darwin, but to retire him to make way for more coherent comprehensive theories.
This is, and always has been, a ridiculous argument.
Darwin will eventually be superseded by something else.
That’s what happens to theories someone comes along with a better one that fits the known (at that time!) facts. And so it continues! If your explanation (theory) can’t be modified or replaced when new facts come along you don’t have a theory you have dogma!
P4L
On the micro evolution front yes, but as a way to explain life moving from primordial slime to high level sentient life forms not so much.
Then what is the point? Isn't the question of the the origins of life more important than speciation?
Hey, I don’t set scientific priorities.
I’m just enjoying the results.
I really don't get the idea of intelligent design. It just pushes the problem up a layer. If I understand the basic premise, life is too complex to be a random chance, so it requires an intelligence to have created it. But where did that intelligence come from? This question seems to be dismissed as unimportant, but it illuminates the soft underbelly of intelligent design. Either intelligence can arise without life, or intelligence requires intelligence to arise. So either intelligent design is based on a vague premise or a contradictory premise.
It seems laughable that people criticize evolution because it doesn't explain how life began, and then those same people don't explain how intelligence began.
Which seems more unlikely, spontaneous creation of life as a super simple level, or the spontaneous creation of intelligence capable of creating life.
Yep. Very difficult to prove or even imagine how the primordial soup,the atmosphere, temperature gradients and radiation came together, reacted and somehow ended up producing entities that lived and reproduced is not answered by Darwin or anyone else. But keep wondering, asking why and how and eventually the answers just might surprise you. If you are content with the explanation that it was all designed then enjoy your nap.
It also renders the concept of design moot.
I've yet to have an ID proponent identify anything in the universe that wasn't designed. If everything is designed then saying life was designed is a zero content statement.
For later
It also requires a new term. What exactly is the undesigned designer?
The question of 'who designed the designer' is most famously put forth by Dawkins in his book The God Delusion which fellow atheist Michael Ruse reviewed and stated, "would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing".
1. A known designer is not required by Intelligent Design - you don't need to know who designed the designer when you discover an arrow - you know it was designed. (Can be applied the the fine tuned universe, DNA, rare earth, consciousness, etc...) Intelligent Design is an inference - analogia, a fortiori and vera causa - same as Darwin used to form his theory.
2. We know the universe had a beginning (Big Bang) and if there was an infinite past we would never arrive at the present. Logical reasoning leads to the conclusion that the initial cause of motion must be something that is not, itself, in motion—an unmoved mover – the Prime Mover. If every cause is the result of a previous cause, or, if everything is caused by something else, then we have an "infinite regress" of causes which is logically incoherent (who designed the designer). Furthermore, natural processes cannot create natural processes (circulus in probando). So we are logically left with ‘creation’ from outside of nature.
3. When postulating a creator outside of nature, asking who created the creator would be like asking 'how long did it take to create time' - 'how much area did it take to create space' - 'how much weight did it take to create matter'. Something that transcends time has no beginning(unlike our universe) - therefore no designer or cause. (It could literally have no beginning because there was no such thing as “before” or “beginning” or history when there was no time)
4. From a theological Judeo-Christian standpoint, the question becomes "who made God?" - which means you are reduced to thinking about created gods. I don't know any Christian who believes God was created. It just becomes an absurd question you might hear a child ask.
1) you don't need to know who designed the designer when you discover an arrow. Too simplified and assumptive.
2) We know the universe had a beginning (Big Bang) and if there was an infinite past we would never arrive at the present. There is so much we don't understand and never will understand. These types of statements are pure hubris and have no power to convince me.
3) When postulating a creator outside of nature. Ah ha! Now we're talking. So the undesigned designer is the same as the unmoved mover? This line of reasoning has never impressed me. It uses assumptions and logic to create an idea we are not allowed to question. Maybe I'm just part of the slow class.
4) you are reduced to thinking about created gods. Now God I don't have a problem with. He is outside of time, without beginning or end. I am happy to state that I can not understand His nature. But I thought the basis of intelligent design was that it didn't need a god. But if the intelligence of intelligent design is something that "transcends time" and "has no designer or cause", what can it be? Using philosophy to explain things we can't understand can not build a solid foundation, other than convincing people who choose the be convinced.
All that being said, I think that looking at the world from a designed viewpoint is a viable alternative to an evolutionary viewpoint. I just don't understand the holier than thou attitude of intelligent designers.
Darwin’s treatise; “On the Origin of Species” is of itself contradictory to his theory. If there is gradual change, there can be no distinct species. Think about it... If two fish exist, one which evolved from the other, then there should be everything in between the two. The other point is that biological evolution is competely moot now, because it happens on the order of millions of years, which is currently 6-7 orders of magnitude slower than man’s technological evolution. We are already developing Tsetse flies that don’t have wings, tomatoes that stay red longer, etc. Where will be in 100 years? It is further proof in my mind that man was created in God’s image. He is just like us, only much more technologically advanced.
Lol.. the other 2/3 have very serious cognitive dissonance problems with laws and logic.. AKA real science. They prob believe the hymalayas will melt by 2020 as claimed by science l.
Then it quotes a few selected (secret) ID-adherents in a way to make it look as though they were actually representative of that minority of "Darwinism-dissenters."
This article is designed to be read and swallowed by science-illiterates who couldn't tell their polypeptides from a hole in the ground who - the authors hope - will then regurgitate their "talking-points" to other laymen.
Regards,
“Sorry but Darwin’s insight is still the very best explanation to explain the diversity and complexity of multiple species other than a belief in mystical creation. “
What other non-”mystical creation” explanations are there?
“As I noted before...Darwin cannot address the origins of life.”
Of course it does.
I really don’t get the idea of intelligent design. It just pushes the problem up a layer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.