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.
“If there is gradual change, there can be no distinct species.”
Gradual but salutatory at the species level.
“If there is gradual change, there can be no distinct species.”
Gradual but saltatory at the species level.
Well, happy to hear that some of the most intelligent
people in the world are now questioning something most
of us ignorant bastards has guestioned all along.
Do you have something to compare it to that wasn't designed?
Furthermore, we know DNA has the following
1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
DNA contains multi-layered information that reads both forward and backwards - DNA stores data more efficiently than anything we've created - DNA contains meta-information (information about how to use the information in the context of the related data). It is a closed system dependent on all operations to be functioning. You have information in a symbolic representation and a reading frame code. Put simply, a message assumes a protocol (agreement, set of rules) between the sender and the receiver, to help correctly encode and interpret the contents of the message. A simple example would be codons, they only represent amino acids if you have the system in place to interpret the functional relationship of the medium (aaRS). This cannot just happen by accident and the design inferences are obvious and inescapable.
Thanks. Does this mean you don't think the rocks or natural mountains had a designer?
There is no such thing as “Darwinism”. Never was, still isn’t. And if you want to poke holes in evolutionary theory, try posing some reasonable alternative mechanism yourselves. You know, one that doesn’t involve saying “God did it!”
Evolutionary theory makes testable predictions. Creationism and Intelligent Design, by their nature, do not.
Evolutionary theory makes testable predictions.
You’re either trolling, or completely ignorant of evolutionary theory and the kind of predictions it makes.
FYI:
… according to the Oxford English Dictionary, Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin’s most famous defender in Britain) used “Darwinism” in 1864 to describe Charles Darwin’s theory. In 1876, Harvard botanist Asa Gray (who despite their disagreement over whether evolution was guided was Darwin’s most ardent defender in America) published Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism, and in 1889 natural selection’s co-discoverer Alfred Russel Wallace published Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection. Two of Wilson’s former Harvard colleagues, evolutionary biologists Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould, used the word extensively in their scientific writings, and recent science journals carry articles with titles such as “Darwinism and Immunology” and ³The Integration of Darwinism and Evolutionary Morphology.”
-uncommondescent
Fair enough, but it seems pointless to call out a designer for the processes that created and evolved living things when you think that same designer is responsible for the processes that created everything.
Why pretend that ID is anything but a theological argument?
Because it is not – but it can be – just like evolution is not necessarily atheistic – but it can be… ID proponents like Berlinski and Denton are agnostic – and Behe (and others) believe in common descent.
Question:If you were to discover a highly efficient motor that performed necessary functions with precisely arranged parts for perfect energy conversion, would you be allowed to infer design? What would prevent anyone from making the inference?
Answer: It would be a commitment to scientism/materialism because I fail to see how the ATP synthase would emerge from a series of happy accidents.
Incredulity is not a scientific stance.
We know that motors are/were designed by humans. We do not know that molecular “motors” were designed, and our lack of ability to see how they might have come about via natural processes is not an argument for a designer, but rather an argument in favour of continuing to seek natural explanations. That’s science. Does ID theory make any testable predictions at all? I mean predictions not like that some “irreducibly complex” structure is exactly what you’d expect to see if it was the result of design?
For example, we know DNA has the following
1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
DNA contains multi-layered information that reads both forward and backwards - DNA stores data more efficiently than anything we've created - DNA contains meta-information (information about how to use the information in the context of the related data). It is a closed system dependent on all operations to be functioning. You have information in a symbolic representation and a reading frame code. Put simply, a message assumes a protocol (agreement, set of rules) between the sender and the receiver, to help correctly encode and interpret the contents of the message. A simple example would be codons, they only represent amino acids if you have the system in place to interpret the functional relationship of the medium (aaRS). This cannot just happen by accident and the design inferences are obvious and inescapable.
Instead, the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer – an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff – hardware – but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.
– Paul Davies
“virtually all of science proceeds as if ID is true – it seeks elegant and efficient models; it reverse engineers biological systems; it describes evolution in teleological terms; it refers to natural forces and laws as if there is some kind of prescriptive agency guiding matter and energy; it assumes that the nature of the universe and human comprehensive capacity have some sort of truthful, factual correspondence.”
– William J Murray
I encourage you to watch this video by respected scientist James Tour: The Mystery of the Origin of Life
(yes, I know Darwinism does not deal with life’s origin – but this is a great video and has implications to the theory regardless)
To exactly the same extent that you could infer design from the extremely complex weather systems that produce hurricanes.
If you want to attribute every complex process that we may not fully understand yet to a designer, fine, but don't single out life and don't call it science.
As I keep repeating, I'll give the ID proponents some respect for intellectual honesty when they identify some things in the universe that they don't think were designed, but until then they're just playing word games about natural forces we don't fully understand.
I’ll ask again - do you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately emerged from mindlessness?
Perhaps, but they do equally amazing things and produce almost unlimited amounts of information - just ask NOAA. The forces that create weather are immensely complex, which explains our limited ability to accurately model what will happen in the future.
I'm not a physicist or a meteorologist but I know for a fact one could write a description of the processes involved in forming a hurricane that would be as complicated and unlikely-sounding to the layman as any of the descriptions you post of 'motors' or cellular function.
It's relatively easy for a knowledgeable person to make something sound complicated, but scientists have historically tried to measure and understand these processes while the ID folks say "Wow. I don't know how that could have happened naturally so I must have reached the end of Knowledge Road. The Designer did it."
I’ll ask again - do you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately emerged from mindlessness?
Yes, because I believe there was a time before there were conscious humans and now we're here.
Do you think the universe was formed with conscious humans in place? If not, you think consciousness emerged from mindlessness as well, although we may differ on the process by which it emerged.
flr
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.