Darwin’s Doubt

Darwin’s Doubt, the brand new New York Times bestseller by Cambridge-trained Ph.D., Stephen Meyer, is creating a major scientific controversy. Darwinists don’t like it.

Meyer writes about the complex history of new life forms in an easy to understand narrative style. He takes the reader on a journey from Darwin to today while trying to discover the best explanation for how the first groups of animals arose. He shows, quite persuasively, that Darwinian mechanisms don’t have the power to do the job.

Using the same investigative forensic approach Darwin used over 150 years ago, Meyer investigates the central doubt Darwin had about his own theory. Namely, that the fossil record did not contain the rainbow of intermediate forms that his theory of gradual evolutionary change required. However, Darwin predicted that future discoveries would confirm his theory.

Meyer points out that they haven’t. We’ve thoroughly searched the fossil record since Darwin and confirmed what Darwin originally saw himself: the discontinuous, abrupt appearance of the first forms of complex animal life. In fact, paleontologists now think that roughly 20 of the 28 animal phyla (representing distinct animal “body plans”) found in the fossil record appear abruptly without ancestors in a dramatic geological event called the Cambrian Explosion.

And additional discoveries since Darwin have made it even worse for his theory. Darwin didn’t know about DNA or the digital information it contains that makes life possible. He couldn’t have appreciated, therefore, that building new forms of animal life would require millions of new characters of precisely sequenced code—that the Cambrian explosion was a massive explosion of new information.

For modern neo-Darwinism to survive, there must be an unguided natural mechanism that can create the genetic information and then add to it massively, accurately and within the time allowed by the fossil record. Is there such a mechanism?

The answer to that question is the key to Meyer’s theory and entire book. Meyer shows that the standard “neo-Darwinian” mechanism of mutation and natural selection mechanism lacks the creative power to produce the information necessary to produce new forms of animal life. He also reviews the various post-Darwinian speculations that evolutionary biologists themselves are now proposing to replace the crumbling Darwinian edifice. None survive scrutiny. Not only is there no known natural mechanism that can create the new information required for new life forms, there is no known natural mechanism that can create the genetic code for the first life either (which was the subject of Meyer’s previous book Signature in the Cell).

When Meyer suggests that an intelligent designer is the best explanation for the evidence at hand, critics accuse him of being anti-scientific and endangering sexual freedom everywhere (OK, they don’t explicitly state that last part). They also claim that Meyer commits the God of the gaps fallacy.

But he does not. As Meyer points out, he’s not interpreting the evidence based on what we don’t know, but what we do know. The geologically sudden appearance of fully formed animals and millions of lines of genetic information point to intelligence. That is, we don’t just lack a materialistic explanation for the origin of information. We have positive evidence from our uniform and repeated experience that another kind of cause—namely, intelligence or mind—is capable of producing digital information. Thus, he argues that the explosion of information in the Cambrian period provides evidence of this kind of cause acting in the history of animal life. (Much like any sentence written by one of Meyer’s critics is positive evidence for an intelligent being).

This inference from the data is no different than the inference archaeologists made when they discovered the Rosetta Stone. It wasn’t a “gap” in their knowledge about natural forces that led them to that conclusion, but the positive knowledge that inscriptions require intelligent inscribers.

Of course, any critic could refute Meyer’s entire thesis by demonstrating how natural forces or mechanisms can generate the genetic information necessary to build the first life and then massive new amounts of genetic information necessary for new forms of animal life. But they can’t and hardly try without assuming what they are trying to prove (see Chapter 11). Instead, critics attempt to smear Meyer by claiming he’s doing “pseudo science” or not doing science at all.

Well, if Meyer isn’t, doing science, then neither was Darwin (or any Darwinist today). Meyer is using the same forensic or historical scientific method that Darwin himself used. That’s all that can be used. Since these are historical questions, a scientist can’t go into the lab to repeat and observe the origin and history of life. Scientists must evaluate the clues left behind and then make an inference to the best explanation. Does our repeated experience tell us that natural mechanisms have the power to create the effects in question or is intelligence required?

Meyer writes, “Neo-Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design are not two different kinds of inquiry, as some critics have asserted. They are two different answers—formulated using a similar logic and method of reasoning—to the same question: ‘What caused biological forms and the appearance of design in the history of life?’”

The reason Darwinists and Meyer arrive at different answers is not because there’s a difference in their scientific methods, but because Meyer and other Intelligent Design proponents don’t limit themselves to materialistic causes. They are open to intelligent causes as well (just like archaeologists and crime scene investigators are).

So this is not a debate about evidence. Everyone is looking at the same evidence. This is a debate about how to interpret the evidence, and that involves philosophical commitments about what causes will be considered possible before looking at the evidence. If you philosophically rule out intelligent causes beforehand—as the Darwinists do—you will never arrive at the truth if an intelligent being actually is responsible.

Since all evidence needs to be interpreted, science doesn’t actually say anything—scientists do. So if certain self-appointed priests of science say that a particular theory is outside the bounds of their own scientific dogma, that doesn’t mean that the theory is false. The issue is truth—not whether something fits a materialistic definition of science.

I’m sure Darwinists will continue to throw primordial slime at Meyer and his colleagues. But that won’t make a dent in his observation that whenever we see information like that required to produce the Cambrian Explosion, intelligence is always the cause. In fact, I predict that when open-minded people read Darwin’s Doubt, they’ll see that Dr. Meyer makes a very intelligently designed case that intelligent design is actually true. It’s just too bad that many Darwinists aren’t open to that truth—they aren’t even open minded enough to doubt Darwin as much as Darwin himself was.

RE: Whatever it is that Meyer thinks he “shows” the facts prove otherwise.

All I can say is this...

Meyer writes in his book ( copy and paste), “Neo-Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design are not two different kinds of inquiry, as some critics have asserted. They are two different answers — formulated using a similar logic and method of reasoning—to the same question: ‘What caused biological forms and the appearance of design in the history of life?’”

The reason Darwinists and Meyer arrive at different answers is not because there’s a difference in their scientific methods, but because Meyer and other Intelligent Design proponents don’t limit themselves to materialistic causes.
They are open to intelligent causes as well (just like archaeologists and crime scene investigators are).

So this is not a debate about evidence. Everyone is looking at the same evidence. This is a debate about how to interpret the evidence, and that involves philosophical commitments about what causes will be considered possible before looking at the evidence. If you philosophically rule out intelligent causes beforehand — as the Darwinists do — you will never arrive at the truth if an intelligent being actually is responsible.

Since all evidence needs to be interpreted, science doesn’t actually say anything—scientists do. So if certain self-appointed priests of science say that a particular theory is outside the bounds of their own scientific dogma, that doesn’t mean that the theory is false. The issue is truth — not whether something fits a materialistic definition of science.

RE: Sorry, but there is only one scientific method, and its first rule is: natural explanations for natural processes.

OK, I agree with that UP TO A POINT.

But remember, if the cause of something is SUPERNATURAL, then the scientific method can only get us so far. And if a philosophical naturalist INSISTS that all there is, is natural explanation, then we won’t any closer to the truth.

And let’s remind ourselves of one thing — calling something a “theory” says little about the degree of certainty backing the idea.

A theory describes aspects of nature that are beyond (or beneath) what we can observe, aspects that can be used to explain what we observe. Thus, some theories are true (atomic theory), some are false (caloric theory), and the scientific method is what directs us in deciding which are which.

The next question is this Does Intelligent Design (ID) meet this definition of theory?

I am inclined to say “yes”.

ID is a theory of design detection, and it proposes intelligent agency as a mechanism causing biological change. ID allows us to explain how aspects of observed biological complexity, and other natural complexity, arose. And it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

How?

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.

ID begins with the OBSERVATION that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI) <-— William Dembski’s term.

Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.

Scientists can 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 (Michael Behe’s term), which can be tested for by reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function.

When scientists experimentally uncover irreducible complexity in a biological structure, they conclude that it was designed.

Michael Behe of Lehigh University did just that and detailed his findings in the book — THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION.

RE: Instead, science will continue exploring to find some — any — natural explanation, be that “random occurrences”, “dark energy” or some other such place-holding name which essentially means: we don’t know what the h*ll it is, so will give it a natural-sounding name.

I am not against Scientists doing just that. However, I am also open tot he fact that science will have its LIMITATIONS, *IF* the REAL explanation is that SOMEONE actually CREATED what scientists observe. If that is the real explanation, then you can give it any name you like, it is still intelligently designed.

RE: So, many scientists practice scientific (methodological) naturalism while remaining philosophically theistic.
They are not contradictory.

Let’s put it another way, if as a scientist, I try my best to find a naturalistic explanation for something, but I find that it has a LIMITED explanation, then I have to exercise some sort of “faith” for want of a better word, that there is an explanation beyond the bounds of naturalistic explanations.

RE: Evolution is a strongly and frequently confirmed scientific theory. Several competing hypotheses have been tested and falsified, so Evolution remains as the only scientific theory left standing.

Why should we accept this “last one standing” idea?

The way I am seeing it Evolution, especially defined as simple change, makes no predictions; it becomes so pliable and vacuous as to fit all observations. If the evolution model were true, we would expect to see it in action. We could expect to see new elements, new stars, new species of plants and animals, etc.

There is no way to test evolution and creation because they are both reconstructions of unobserved history. We weren’t there; the scientists weren’t there.

A “model” can neither be proved nor disproved scientifically, but it can be evaluated based on its ability to explain the scientific data. Therefore, the model that explains the greatest number and variety of facts, with the smallest number of modifications is the one most likely to be true.

RE: Swimming in Codswallop, drinking the Codswallop koolaid, chose your own metaphor

As long as you cannot explain why that word describes what I said, that is simply it — a word (in your case, adopt). It’s a nice word to throw around but personally, it does not impress unless there is a good explanation for why the adjective fits, it is just that — A WORD.

Much like “racist”.

RE: “Irreducible complexity” is a nonsense term which has been debunked in any number of examples, leading to the logical conclusion that no living feature is “irreducibly complex.”

Debunked? Really or simply dismissed?

Just because you say it is nonsense doesn’t make it nonsense.

Some criticism is valid, others are not.

I am not one who accepts wholeheartedly IC as valid, yet, I am not one to dismiss it as nonsense (your word, not mine ) outright.

I would say that Some of the biological examples which proponents cited early on appear now to be reducible. This does not nullify the concept itself (AT LEAST NOT YET), nor does it negate actual examples of irreducibly complex biological systems.

irreducible complexity is an aspect of an OBSERVATION that argues some biological systems are so complex and so dependent upon multiple complex parts, that they could not have evolved by chance. Unless all the parts of a system all evolved at the same time, the system would be useless, and therefore would actually be a detriment to the organism, and therefore, according to the “laws” of evolution, would be naturally selected out of the organism. While irreducible complexity does not explicitly prove an intelligent Designer, and does not conclusively disprove evolution, it most definitely points to something outside of random processes in the origin and development of biological life.

I WOULD NOT DISMISS IT OUT OF HAND, JUST YET. It is at this point in time, still a VALID argument to look into.

RE: You’re missing my point.

I’ll be the judge of that.

RE: Of course, everything is “intelligently designed”, by definition of the words “G*d Almighty”. If you believe in G*d, then nothing is not (sorry for the double negative) planned, designed & created by Him according his His purposes. So no matter what scientists call it, it’s still G*d’s intelligent design.

I have often wondered why some Darwinists are still Theists.
You said this: “many scientists practice scientific (methodological) naturalism while remaining philosophically theistic.”

Well, that’s a wonder to me. If they are theistic philosophically, what does that mean if not that they, like
Intelligent design proponents are OPEN to the idea that someone (i.e., God, since you use the word derived from Theos ) intelligently created and guided the process.

It could mean either one of the following:

1) One will try to follow naturalistic methods to its limits, but they have in a sense, felt that they have reached it. Therefore, they are open to the idea that God has to be in the picture.

If this is so, then I don’t see how this does not describe men like Stephen Meyers or Michael Behe.

I have yet to see an ID proponent discouraging Darwinists from pursuing naturalistic explanations.

Heck, Darwinists doing so and succeeding will in fact FALSIFY ID.

OR;

2) One insists that everything can be explained by a pure naturalistic process INDEPENDENT of an outside intelligence.

It is #2 that I find bizarre for someone who says he is philosophically, a theist.

RE: Scientists are entitled to believe whatever they wish about supernatural or metaphysical realms. By definition, science itself makes no attempt to address such questions.

I think the question we are discussing is this — Does positing an Intelligent Agent while observing biological complexity and observing the problems that arise from Darwin’s theory count as science?

RE: The word “evolution” is today a general concept covering a whole host of confirmed facts, theories and many as-yet unconfirmed hypotheses. Nobody is required to put any more “faith” in any particular evolution-related idea than its confirmed predictions warrant.

Then we should be thanking men like Stephen Meyer for pointing out the problems of Darwinian evolution, not vilifying them.

Meyer points out that Darwin himself (an honest scientist) said that: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Steve Meyer’s book is a wonderful, comprehensive case that the origin of the major types of animals, namely the phyla, is just as strikingly discontinuous as the the origin of life.

Meyer himself observed that Darwin acknowledged in his Origin of Species, a problem for his original theory of evolution—namely that the geologically sudden appearance of many novel forms of animal life in the Cambrian period, and the absence of fossilized ancestral precursors for most of these animals in lower Precambrian strata, challenges the gradualistic picture of evolution envisioned by both Darwin and modern neo-Darwinians.

Second, and more importantly, Meyer argues that the neo-Darwinian mechanism lacks the creative power to produce the new animal forms that first appear in the Cambrian period, a view that many evolutionary biologists themselves now share.

Meyer, in particular, argues that the mutation and natural selection mechanism lacks the creative power to produce both the genetic and epigenetic information necessary to build the animals that arise in Cambrian. Meyer offers five separate lines of evidence and arguments to support this latter claim. He also later describes and critiques six post neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories and makes a positive argument for intelligent design.

If Darwin’s theory were “confirmed” (your words, not mine), we would not be reading multiple peer-reviewed studies showing that multiple coordinated mutations would be necessary to produce functional proteins, but these could not arise within realistic waiting times allowed by the fossil record.

RE: That evidence also suggests that G*d uses evolution to accomplish His purposes.

How did He do it? By leaving the process alone, or by GUIDING the process intelligently? If the former, we should be seeing it in animal development for instance. But we don’t. What we see is this — neo-Darwinian mechanism does not produce new body plans given that mutagenesis experiments show how early acting body plan mutations—the very mutations that would be necessary to produce whole new animals from a pre-existing animal body plan—inevitably produce embryonic lethals.

RE: Actually, there is a simple standard for the word “codswallop”, and you can see it yourself, whenever you listen to the language of some Democrat, like, oh say, Nancy Pelosi.

I agree with you there. But I am still waiting for you to show me how this word applies to Stephen Meyer’s books.

RE: The claim of “irreducible complexity” is a blatant argument from ignorance. It essentially says: “since I’m too stupid to figure it out, therefore G*d must have done it.”

Or it could mean that I am simply using my experience of observing how complex things work in everyday life and apply it to what I see in biology.

Intelligent design is an idea which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action.

Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences.

Also, It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.

THAT’s ALL. I don’t see anything unscientific about that.

There need not be an invocation of God, religion, or adherence to any religious text but rather the use of observations about how intelligent design works in the present to look at aspects of the natural world to see if they are designed.

So, ID is based solely upon applying observations about intelligent action and principles of information theory to the construction of biological systems, and nothing more.

There is nothing mystical, supernatural, religious, or non-scientific about positing intelligent design.

In fact, in its current form, intelligent design can say nothing about the designer other than that the designer was intelligent. THAT’s ALL.

Whether you agree with the methodology of intelligent design theory or not, you have to agree with one thing: it has a scientific basis.

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.