Has Darwin Become Dogma?

To The Source ^ | Nov. 10, 2004 | Dr. Benjamin Wiker

[Lindykim]

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.   

November 11, 2004   

Dear Concerned Citizen, by Dr. Benjamin Wiker  

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.

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis

Michael Behe, Darwins Black Box

Brian Goodwin, How the Leopard Changed Its Spots

John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education

William Dembski, Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, Beyond Neo-Darwinism

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

Benjamin Wiker, Moral Darwinism Scientific Difficulties with Darwinism

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.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org. © Copyright 2004 - tothesource

[qam1]

I'm really not following what your discussion of carp and goldfish have to do with evolution. Do you have a link?

Well you can go here

But no link is needed since regarding Your assertion Quote

"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"

Which you were implying that it couldn't happen, Well it has happened with the goldfish.

Goldfish came from the Crussian Carp

About 1100 years ago in China, And since then they have changed/evolved more enough to fit all three of your criteria.

[johnnyb_61820]

"Find an instance of a cat giving birth to a monkey."

This is absurd. That would falsify pretty much all biology (including creation science).

"Find a fully modern multicelluar organism in a precambrian fossil."

That's a much better one. But I doubt you're serious. If this happens, will you say "oh! I won't believe in evolution now." Or will you say, "evolution must have happened faster than we thought!"

[johnnyb_61820]

"The simplist way to falsify evolution is to demonstrate via DNA analysis, that living things are not related by common descent."

Except that evolutionists are very fast to switch things from homologous to analogous and back to justify any possible organization of the data they find. I'm not sure of what, specifically, would cause an evolutionist to think that organisms aren't related. All of the analogous-vs-homologous structures are determined by the presuppositions of evolution, and the determinations are based on which ones best support evolutionary theory.

[johnnyb_61820]

"Changes in chromosome count are common in the plant world, somewhat rare in animals, but they do happen."

True, but can the rare chromosomal count changes in animals account for the change of chromosome counts in an entire population?

[johnnyb_61820]

What completely new features were developed?

One thing evolutionists often forget is that we have many, many latent genes which can affect the phenotype when exposed to a different environment, even given the same genotype.

One thing that the fossil record does not show is which changes were a result of a change in genetics versus a change in environment.

Also, evolutionists forget that change over time has always been assumed and known long before evolution, and was never thought of as inconsistent with creationism.

However, macro evolution posits that offspring, through a process of time, become more (more complexity, more features, etc.) than their children. I don't see your example supporting this. It's just change, and not very big ones at that.

[johnnyb_61820]

"So then, where are the modern cows in the precambrian fossil record?"

You are assuming that creationism doubts change over time. It does not. See here:

http://www.doesgodexist.org/SepOct04/MicroMacroingEvolution.html

Now, as far as the dating of animals, it seems that "scientific dating" of anything is anything but that. The fossil record is much more mixed than evolutionists would have you believe, especially since evolution is _used_ to date the fossil record.

That's one thing many people forget -- evolution is not proven by the fossil record, because it is evolution that is used to interpret the fossil record. If we didn't use evolution as the interpretation mechanism, we would not label many of the current fossils with the same labels and dates that are used because of evolutionary dating.

[VadeRetro]

I can't imagine why you chose to insert the following quote and then interpret it as you do.

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer…. The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

In saying that Precambrian fossils should indeed be found if his theory is correct, he is predicting that they'll turn up. They did. By the sixth edition of his book, he glowingly refers to a few finds--Archaeopteryx among them--subsequent to his first edition which support his work. One of these is something called "Eozoon." That's no longer a valid taxon; "Eozoon" was a misinterpretation of a stromatolite. Nevertheless it was and is fossil of Precambrian life, of which many are now known. Darwin knew that they must have existed for his theory to be right.

Take the blinders off, Betty, and give the man credit where credit is due. He also said land animals transitioned to whales in stages, the fossils of which had not been found in his day but must have existed. They've been found.

[johnnyb_61820]

Good article. Enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

[Wallace T.]

For evangelical Christians who believe in the in-errancy and infallibility of the Bible and for fundamentalists generally, belief in biological or geological evolution, even "guided" evolution, would be contradictory.

Evangelicals and fundamentalists regard the Protestant Reformation as a return to Biblical teachings after centuries of the subordination of those teachings to tradition and church authority. The historic Reformation position on the interpretation of Scripture is that it is the literal Word of God, and thus is entirely correct, not only in the areas of metaphysics, faith, and morals, but also in such areas as history, biology, and psychology, at least in the original autographa. The Biblical narrative is to be taken literally, that is, in the plain meaning of the words, taking into account the historical and grammatical context in which it is written and what is known of the background of the human authors of the books of the Bible.

Another Reformation principle regarding the Bible is that of sola Scriptura, or the Bible alone. Protestant Christians, such as myself, who adhere to the doctrines of the Reformation rely upon the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, that is, that a given statement in the Bible, for instance, “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (II Corinthians 5:7), must be understood in the context of other statements regarding faith found in the Bible.

A third Reformation principle is that of the perspicuity of the Bible. Due to the fallen nature of man, it is recognized that human understanding of God’s Word will be imperfect. However, the basic doctrines taught in the Bible, such as the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, good, and just God, the sinful nature of man, and the Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ, are capable of being understood even by small children and adults of limited intelligence. Those with greater knowledge and experience will have a more profound knowledge of Scripture, in the sense of the "milk and meat" analogy used by the apostle Paul.

Christians who are faithful to the principles of the Reformation do not have the Magisterium (Scripture, along with tradition and the positions of church councils and the Pope at least when he speaks ex cathedra), as do the Roman Catholics. Unlike the Mormons, we recognize only the 66 books of the Protestant Bible as divinely inspired and lack a hierarchy that speaks authoritatively for the church. While the writings of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others are studied, they do not carry the weight for us that the Talmud does for Orthodox Jews. Unlike the Eastern Orthodox, we do not have a Holy Tradition that stands parallel to Holy Scripture. Because of the belief in inerrancy, those who hold to Reformation principles cannot take the path of liberals and neo-orthodox adherents in Protestant churches, who would accept a predominant opinion of modern scientists as being more truthful than what they perceive as the fallible observations and opinions of the ancient authors of the books of the Bible.

Genesis 1-11 purports to be a narrative of the events at the beginning of the world and the universe. It is not a vision given by God directly to an author, as is most of Revelation. There is little symbolism used, unlike the case with the prophecies of Daniel or Ezekiel. Neither is it allegory, as are Christ’s parables. Nor is it poetry that utilizes literary devices such as simile and metaphor, as may be found in Psalms. If the first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis are false, the Bible cannot be held to be inerrant. If the Bible is not inerrant, on what basis can those who hold to Reformation principles say that Christ’s death and resurrection are true? How can one book of the Bible, or part of it, be false, and the rest true?

Without the linchpin of Biblical inerrancy, along with the principles of sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of God’s Word, the theological principles of the Reformers, which is to say, those of Jesus Christ, Paul, and the apostles, collapse.

In conclusion, the gulf between evangelicals and fundamentalists who support creationism and the advocates of evolution, regardless of their metaphysical views, is rooted in different presuppositions.

[balrog666]

Without the linchpin of Biblical inerrancy, along with the principles of sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of God’s Word, the theological principles of the Reformers, which is to say, those of Jesus Christ, Paul, and the apostles, collapse.

Find a new religion then.

[Wallace T.]

In the words of Isaac Asimov, which I shamelessly stole from your home page: "Science doesn't purvey absolute truth. Science is a mechanism, a way of trying to improve your knowledge of nature. It's a system of testing your thoughts against the universe and seeing whether they match." I believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth and that said truth may be found in the Bible.

[Lindykim]

Sorry, I don't buy your arguments.
The word "evolve" means 'to change". So either humans and all other life forms are 'evolving' or they aren't. And according to the evolutionists/materialists 'creation story," life "evolved" somehow or another from unintelligent, purposeless, meaningless, nondirected chemicals & assorted other matter. And it has supposedly been 'evolving' upwards ever since.


The problem for evolutionists {and there are very many problems indeed}, is that they cannot 'show' this supposed continuous change so they must do as you just did......fillibuster.....obfuscate.......endlessly pontificate. And if that doesn't work, then they call dissenters to their evolution myth an assortment of derogatory names.


Height? That's no argument in defense of 'evolution". Okinawans are very short, while certain mainland Chinese are very tall. Turkish males average 5'6"-5'7". Everyone in my family are tall while almost everyone in my husbands' family are not.


As I said, human beings haven't changed at all. And the evidence stares us right in the face: ancient artistic and written depictions of humans. And in light of the fact that history began with the advent of mankinds' ability to record it, and that prior to that ability prehistoric mankind passed on memorized versions of history {folklore}, it's logical to assume then that prehistoric man looked the same as "historic" man. If he did not, ancient historic man would surely have recorded that "once upon a time, our ancestors looked, sounded, and acted like apes."


Think about that.

[longshadow]

procedural placemarker

[LogicWings]

In this case, the entrance gate has "creationism" (or ID) signs plastered all over it. Just turn in your brain and go on in.

Yes, a resort to an Appeal to Authority. - You just aren't intelligent enough to understand these things, better leave them to the "experts." Here, let me wash your brain. "Just relax - you must not think bad thoughts. . . "

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y’all for the pings and the additional information!

To Doctor Stochastic:

Well, if there were an abundance of soft-bodied life forms in pre-Cambrian earth, it seems to me there ought to also be fossil evidence of burrows or trails.

This article discusses Cambrian soft-bodied fossils Mechanisms of the fossilization of soft-bodied and lightly armored faunas of the Burgess shale and of some other classical localities.

Page 12 (5.1) in the article speaks to preCambrian fossilization. The discussion concerns bacterial cell walls (as compared to soft-bodied life, i.e. body plans).

To balrog666 (and PatrickHenry):

Indeed, that is one article I missed. PatrickHenry pings me to such things – but I believe I was out-of-town around then for a family reunion and thus probably missed it.

The “small spring animal” is quite interesting, especially considering its organs and dating in the geologic record. However, some scientists (such as Stefan Bengtson) are skeptic and believe the find is actually a natural mineral formation (Fossils have ‘similar body plans to humans’ ).

Bengtson suggests (in a different article) that the find is actually thin, banded, mineral crusts.

I'll wait to accept the discovery until the possibility that it is a mineral formation has been eliminated.

As I recall, there has been much contention about other preCambrian finds - culminating in a big "showdown" conference last year. The argument was the same - biologic or mineral formation. But frankly, I'm not sure what (if anything) resulted from the confrontation.

[qam1]

What completely new features were developed?

Gee, Where to begin.

2 Bubble filled sacs
Eyes pointing upward
button eye
No dorsal fin (Note: Goldfish with dorsal fins have concave shaped fins, While the crusian carp fins are convex)  
Double tail
Egg Shaped body
Rearranged and sized swim bladders
Can't survive in the carp's original habitat
microsatellite markers.of 100 units (Crusian Carp have only 65)
coarsely serrated dorsal spine
Matt, metallic, nacreous and pearl scales.

I would say they are significant changes

One thing evolutionists often forget is that we have many, many latent genes which can affect the phenotype when exposed to a different environment, even given the same genotype.

HUH?

The Bubble eye "feature" first showed up in1908. So you are trying to say the genes for the Bubble eye stayed latent for ~1000 years though 1000s of generations and billions/trillions of fish?

Stick a bunch of carp in a pool or bathtub, You will never get a bubble eye.

Plus Explain why even though the Crucian carp ranges from China to Europe, Goldfish only evolved in China?.

Actually the evolution of the Bubble eye is very well known since the history of the goldfish is well documented. It started from the Telescope which first appeared in the year 1592.

Telescope 1592 Eyes on stalks	Celestial 1870 Loss of dorsal fins, eyes point upward	BubbleEye 1908 Fluid filled sacks

One thing that the fossil record does not show is which changes were a result of a change in genetics versus a change in environment.

That's Lamarkian Evolution, It's pretty much discredited.

Again stick a carp in a fishtank, It won't change into a goldfish

Also, evolutionists forget that change over time has always been assumed and known long before evolution, and was never thought of as inconsistent with creationism.

umm, Ok

But what exact mechanism is preventing small accumulating changes from becoming large changes? What is this limiting factor in evolution?

However, macro evolution posits that offspring, through a process of time, become more (more complexity, more features, etc.) than their children.

More complexity isn't necessary an outcome of evolution, Evolution has no such goal.

But Goldfish aren't any more complex than the carp, They are made to survive in their environment, Carp are made for theirs.

I don't see your example supporting this. It's just change, and not very big ones at that.

Well hey, No surprises there, The bishops didn't see the craters on the moon or the moons going around Jupiter either when looking through Galileo's telescope either.

[johnnyb_61820]

Interesting stuff. I'll research it as I have time. However, it also appears that you were confused as to some of my points:

"That's Lamarkian Evolution, It's pretty much discredited."

IIRC, Lamarkian evolution says that acquired characteristics are handed down. My claim was that differences in the environment causes different genes to be active, thus the environment can have an affect on the phenotype. This is actually pretty well documented in some cases. What I'm saying is that a lot of people shout "evolution" when a change in the environment is equally able to explain the difference in phenotype expression.

"But what exact mechanism is preventing small accumulating changes from becoming large changes? What is this limiting factor in evolution?"

That the small changes themselves aren't the kind that are needed to create new types of body parts.

"More complexity isn't necessary an outcome of evolution, Evolution has no such goal."

Can you point to an example of something that has evolved to a lower complexity?

"But Goldfish aren't any more complex than the carp, They are made to survive in their environment, Carp are made for theirs."

Exactly. The kinds of changes you see aren't the kinds required for full evolution.

Anyway, good thoughts to think about.

[stremba]

Possibly, but do we know that there hasn't been a shift in allele frequency? The point was that humans haven't been completly unchanged as was asserted.

[stremba]

Then creationists believe in evolution. All evolution is is change in allele frequencies in the gene pool of a population over time. Mutation combined with natural selection is the mechanism of evolution proposed by Darwin. I would no blindly assert that Darwin had everything absolutely 100% correct. I would assert that evolution occurs, and with this, it seems, you do not disagree.

[js1138]

There is little symbolism used, unlike the case with the prophecies of Daniel or Ezekiel. Neither is it allegory, as are Christ’s parables. Nor is it poetry that utilizes literary devices such as simile and metaphor

This interpretation is, of course, based on the judgement of men, and is therefore subject ot error.