Has Darwin Become Dogma?

500 years ago science revolted against theological dogma as the source of all knowledge. Today it is science that is trying to assume the mantle of the sole arbiter of truth. On magazine covers such as this month's National Geographic and in legal battles across the country, the scientific community has become absolute in its belief that evolution will answer all of the questions regarding our beginnings. They have become so dogmatic that anyone who questions this belief is considered a heretic who should be ridiculed into silence.

Nearly a century and a half has passed since the publication of Charles Darwins Origin of Species. Evolution has been taught as an undeniable fact in high school textbooks for well over a half century. Why all of the sudden do we find the cover of the November 2004 issue of National Geographic emblazoned with the question, "Was Darwin Wrong?" It's that like asking "Was Copernicus Wrong?"

So, what's up? When we turn to the first page of the article, we find the same question again, this time written across the gray feathered breast of a domestically bred Jacobin pigeon, the outlandish plumage of which reminds one of the costumes of the late Liberace. Flip to the next page and we find our answer, a resounding 'NO' printed in a font a third of the page high. But if the answer is such a large and definitive NO, why would the venerable National Geographic entertain (even rhetorically) the apparently foolish question 'Was Darwin wrong?"

If you read the article, you'll wonder what all the shouting is about. The author David Quammen paints a calm picture of an established science unburdened by serious criticism. The only critics, so we are told, are 'fundamentalist Christians','ultraorthodox Jews', and 'Islamic creationists', all of whom view evolution as a threat to their scientifically uninformed theology. Obviously, they aren't the ones ruffling National Geographics feathers.

Who else arouses the great NO? As it turns out, 'Other' people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup poll, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

"Why are there so many antievolutionists?' they ask impatiently. Why indeed? Unfortunately, you won't find the real answer in the article, which merely offers a fluff and flash, unambiguous public relations presentation of evolution.

The real answer is this. To the question 'Was Darwin Wrong?' the proper answer is not a clamorous 'NO' but a well-informed 'Yes and No'. While there are merits to his theory, there are also serious problems, serious scientific problems.

Listen to these words: 'despite the power of molecular genetics to reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species. So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without significant support." Are these the words of a 'fundamentalist Christian', 'ultraorthodox Jew', or an 'Islamic creationist'? No, they are the words of Dr. Brian Goodwin, professor of biology, one of a growing number of scientists who find that the powers of natural selection are woefully insufficient to perform the amazing feats promised in the title of Darwins great work of producing new species.

But that was the great promise of Darwin. Small variations among individuals are 'selected' by nature because they make the individual more 'fit' to survive. Those more 'fit' characteristics are passed on to the offspring. Add enough little changes up over time, and the species becomes gradually transformed. Given enough time, evolution will have produced an entirely new species.

So it was that Darwin assumed that little changes in character and appearance (microevolution) would eventually yield, through natural selection, enormous changes (macroevolution). From a single living cell, given millions upon millions upon millions of years, the entire diversity of all living things could be produced.

That was the grand promise of Darwins theory. And Darwin wasn't wrong about microevolution. But the case for macroevolution is far from closed. In fact, biologist Mae-Wan Ho and mathematician Peter Saunders contend that, "All the signs are that evolution theory is in crisis, and that a change is on the way." Darwins theory is in crisis, they argue, because it has failed to explain the one thing that made its promise so grand; how new species arise.

I quote the words of Brian Goodwin, Mae-Wan Ho, and Peter Saunders because they represent the growing number of scientific dissenters from orthodox Darwinism (or more accurately, neo-Darwinism). National Geographic makes no mention of them. That would make the quick and confident 'No' into a rather sheepish "well, sort of".

They also purposely avoid mentioning the growing Intelligent Design movement, a group of scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians who have very serious doubts about many other aspects of Darwins theory. One suspects reading between the lines that the real reason that National Geographic suddenly 'doth protest too much' against doubters of Darwinism, is that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement has done so much to bring the scientific and philosophical problems with evolutionary theory into the public spotlight. They cannot draw attention to the ID movement, however, or people might become more informed about the difficulties that beset Darwinism. So, we return to the question, 'Was Darwin Wrong?" National Geographic says "NO". But readers who aren't satisfied with such simple answers should read the following books.

William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion

The origin of life: Darwin conjectured that all life was descended from a single, simple form. But where did the first living thing come from? In a now famous private letter to Joseph Hooker, Darwin offered a conjecture: if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, then we could explain the origin of life as a lucky chemical reaction. Against this hope, origin of life researchers have fallen on hard times. While there were some initial victories in the laboratory, generating small amounts of pre-biological molecules, scientists are unable to generate anything more biologically interesting unless they artificially rig their experiments in ways that contradict the actual conditions of early Earth.

The problem is so acute that many origin of life scientists have given up, and are now turning their efforts to trying to discover ways that complex, life-seeding molecules may have been delivered from space. Alas, the problems facing such efforts are just as severe.

The fossil record: According to Darwin, evolution had to occur very slowly, through slight changes not by leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, the fossil record does not support such gradual transformation. Instead, species seem to appear quite suddenly, fully formed, stay the same for millions of years, and then just as suddenly disappear. The most significant problem for Darwinism is the Cambrian explosion, where quite suddenly, about 550,000,000 years ago, all the major phyla of the animal kingdom appear in the fossil record.

The Truth About Inherit the Wind "Of course, such a simple choice between bigotry and enlightenment is central to the contemporary liberal vision of which Inherit the Wind is a typical expression. But while it stands nominally for tolerance, latitude, and freedom of thought, the play is full of the self- righteous certainty that it deplores in the fundamentalist camp. Some critics have detected the play's sanctimonious tone-"bigotry in reverse," as Andrew Sarris called it-even while appreciating its dramatic quality and well-written leading roles. The play reveals a great deal about a mentality that demands open-mindedness and excoriates dogmatism, only to advance its own certainties more insistently-that promotes tolerance and intellectual integrity but stoops to vilifying the opposition, falsifying reality, and distorting history in the service of its agenda.

In fact, a more historically accurate dramatization of the Scopes Trial than Inherit the Wind might have been far richer and more interesting-and might also have given its audiences a genuine dramatic tragedy to watch. It would not have sent its audience home full of moral superiority and happy thoughts about the march of progress. The truth is not that Bryan was wrong about the dangers of the philosophical materialism that Darwinism presupposes but that he was right, not that he was a once great man disfigured by fear of the future but that he was one of the few to see where a future devoid of the transcendent would lead. The antievolutionist crusade to control what is taught in the schools may not have been the answer, and Bryan's own approach may have been too narrow. But the real tragedy lies in the losing fight that he and others like him waged against a modernity increasingly deprived of spiritual foundations." Carol Inannone First Things

The Debate Rages On Although nearly 100 years have passed since the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, the debate rages on. In Grantsburg, Wisconsin a firestorm of critique was leveled against the school board this month for revising its science curriculum to include more than one model/theory of origin in the districts science curriculum. Current Wisconsin state law mandates that evolution be taught but the school board viewed the law as too restrictive.

Similar skirmishes are being fought around the country. Ever since the Scopes Trial, the ACLU has been an active player, bringing lawsuits against any group who questions the Darwin dogma in school curriculum. After a group of parents in Cobb County Georgia complained about the exclusive presentation of evolution as the sole theory of origin in three biology textbooks in 2002, stickers were placed in the science texts intended to remind students to keep an open mind. Now the ACLU is representing another group of parents in a lawsuit against that school district claiming that the stickers promote the teaching of creationism and discriminate against particular religions.

The Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania recently voted to include the theory of 'intelligent design' and other alternative theories to evolution in their science curriculum. Similar action was taken by the Ohio board of education this spring when they narrowly approved a similar plan. Critics charge it risks a return to teaching creationism.

To say that evolution has not answered all the scientific questions regarding our origins does not suggest you have to teach creationism in schools as a scientific theory. What should be taught is an honest assessment of what science does and does not know regarding our beginnings. The questions regarding our origins are too big for science alone to answer. People of faith should not allow themselves to be relegated to an anti-science position for questioning Darwin. Questioning the validity of theories is what science is supposed to do.

Benjamin Wiker Benjamin Wiker holds a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, and has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), and Thomas Aquinas College (CA). He is now a Lecturer in Theology and Science at Franciscan University of Steubenville (OH), and a full-time, free-lance writer. Dr. Wiker writes regularly for a variety of journals, including Catholic World Report, New Oxford Review, Crisis Magazine, and First Things, and is a regular columnist for the National Catholic Register. Dr. Wiker just released a new book called Architects of the Culture of Death (Ignatius). His first book, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists, was released in the spring of 2002 (InterVarsity Press). He is writing another book on Intelligent Design for InterVarsity Press called The Meaning-full Universe.

"So called "micro-evolution" is a cop-out by "Creation Scientists" to explain away the observed Evolution process. They claim that since the observed evolution didn't go far enough for their tastes, then it wasn't "real" evolution."

Creationists don't argue against natural selection.

"If "Creation Scientists" were actually scientists, they would propose WHY the observed evolution process would break down at some point."

Then you haven't been payin attention. Natural selection is about shifts within a population, while evolution is about one population becoming a new population that didn't exist before.

Good evening! I found the article I was thinking about earlier that speaks of Nobel scientists whose work had been previously rejected by peer-reviewed journals:

Refereed Journals: Do they ensure quality or enforce orthodoxy?

Rosalyn Yalow, Gunter Blobel, Mitchell Feigenbaum and Theodore Maiman are examples. Notably, Einstein was published three times without peer review. I wonder if he would have also been placed in the reject pile if there was peer-review in his day...

Thank you for your reply!

No doubt predicting the future for species would be difficult, but I don't think it would be impossible - especially considering the advancements made in developing specialized lines for laboratory research - transgenic mice, knock-out genes, etc.

Seems to me it would be part and parcel of environmental research, e.g. how many generations for a line a mice to adapt to a change in air quality, food source, lighting, etc.

"The ordinary understanding is that when you know where little differences in a little time come from, you know whence big differences over longer time arise."

Only if the changes are of the same kind. There is a difference between slight changes within a gene pool and dramatic changes like the number of chromosomes in a species, completely new features, and other extremely complex behavior (Darwin's God has some really interesting examples).

The theory of evolution says that shifts within a gene pool can account for the complete creation of the gene pool itself, a claim which I find highly dubious. Recombining playing cards will give me new hands, but not altogether new cards.

In some particle detection experiments, there is a very low signal to noise ratio. Much computation and curve fitting and statistics go into extrapolating the experimental results. The experimenters know what they expect to see and thus they randomize things to remove their own (perhaps subconcious) bias.

Although this was not the experiment to which I alluded (I don't remember which that one was), one might use some type of randomization techinque to remove experimenter bias when looking for a neutrino mass. The number is very small and one may be tempted to change computational procedure to get "better" results. Randomization prior to computation avoids this difficulty.

Similar things are done in medical studies. Double and triple blind experiments are preferred.

The parapsychologists seem particularly susceptible to recording favorable experimental results that are refuted by filming of the experiment. It's really hard to avoid these types of bias. That's why Fisher invented randomization for agricultural experiments.

The parapsychologists seem particularly susceptible to recording favorable experimental results that are refuted by filming of the experiment.

I do so enjoy understatement as a literary device.

;-)

Only if the changes are of the same kind.

Define kind

There is a difference between slight changes within a gene pool and dramatic changes like the number of chromosomes in a species,

Goldfish have 94 Chromosomes, Carp 100

completely new features,

How about a bubble eye, egg shaped body, new colors & a double tail

and other extremely complex behavior (Darwin's God has some really interesting examples).

Stick a carp in a fishtank, See how well it does

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.

It helps to have cores from marine sediments which have been accumulating uninterrupted for millions of years. Very little of the paleontology done until recently reflects this sort of environment. Terrestrial sediments are snapshots in time separated by long periods of no record.

My whole point is that evolution and creationism are NOT opposing ideas. Since, in their essentials, they deal with different things, they could both be true (or false). They are logically independent ideas. Only if one believes in the literal word of Genesis is there a conflict between the two. Evolution is a scientific theory, which is quite different from what people ordinarily refer to as a theory. As a scientific theory, evolution is supported by a great deal of observational evidence. You are correct when you say it is unproven, but if absolute proof is your standard for belief, then I suggest that you don't look to science for anything. No scientific theory is ever proven. Evolution shares the same status in the scientific community as relativity, quantum theory and a whole host of other theories that nobody in the general public would ever think of questioning. None of these are proven either, but the great weight of evidence makes it unlikely (but not impossible) that they will be overturned.

So then, where are the modern cows in the precambrian fossil record? Where are any multicellular creature fossils from this time period? Could it be that these creatures did not exist during the precambrian era? Could it be that they developed only later?

Find a life form that doesn't have the same basic biochemistry as all of the forms of life currently existant. Find an instance of a cat giving birth to a monkey. Find a fully modern multicelluar organism in a precambrian fossil. All of these would falsify evolution. There are probably many more. A microbiologist could probably present many more examples than I could.

dog-do. /nonsensical sophomoric wordplay.

Contrary to what people may believe, 'critical theory' is not some sort of intellectual path towards acquiring the ability to critically analyze. On the contrary, it's simply a manipulative device created by a devious person {Marcuse} to fool people into believing they are engaging in critical analysis when the reality is that they're simply "criticizing"........empty, meaningless,quite often vicious, deconstruction for the sake of destroying......that's all it is.

Obviously----->You<---- were one of its' not-too-adept students.

dog-do. ¹·¡£/nonsensical sophomoric ÎÄ×ÖÓÎÏ·¡£ Ïà·´¶ÔÊ²Ã´ÈËÃñÒ²ÐíÏàÐÅ, 'critical theory' ²»ÊÇÄ³Ò»ÀàÖÇÁ¦µÀÂ·Íù»ñÈ¡ÄÜÁ¦¶ÔÅúÆÀ·ÖÎö¡£Ïà·´, it's ¼òµ¥Ò»¸ö²Ù×ÝÉè±¸ÓÉÒ»¸öÓØ»ØÈË{Marcuse} ´´Ôì»£ÅªÈËÈëÏàÐÅËûÃÇ²ÎÓëÖØÒª·ÖÎöµ±ÏÖÊµ¼òµ¥µØÊÇÄÇthey're "criticizing"........empty, ÎÞÒâÒå, Ïàµ±¾³£ºÝ¶¾, ½â¹¹ÎªËüÊÇµÄ»Ù»µµÄ...... that's È«²¿¡£ Ã÷ÏÔµØ----- Äú Obviously----->You<---- were one of its' not-too-adept students.

I know you are, but what am I?

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.