Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).
“Evolution is a religion,” declared evolutionary Humanist Michael Ruse. “This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true still today…One of the most popular books of the era was ‘Religion Without Revelation,’ by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley…As always evolution was doing everything expected of religion and more.” (National Post, Canadian Edition, 5/13/2000)
“Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” (Humanist Manifestos I & II, 1980, Introduction, Paul Kurtz)
The primary denominations of Evolutionary Humanism are Cultural Marxism/Communism, Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, and Spiritual Communism. The offshoots of these are among others, New Age/green environmentalism/Gaia, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and atheism. Individually and collectively, these are modernized versions of pre-Biblical naturalism (paganism).
All worldviews begin with a religious declaration. The Biblical worldview begins with, “In the beginning God…” Cosmic Humanism begins, “In the beginning Divine Matter.” Communism, Postmodernism, and Secular Humanism begin with, “In the beginning Matter.” Matter is all there is, and it not only thinks, but is Divine:
“…matter itself continually attains to higher perfection under its own power, thanks to indwelling dialectic…the dialectical materialists attribution of ‘dialectic’ to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones.” (Dialectical Materialism, Gustav A. Wetter, 1977, p. 58)
In explicitly religious language, the following religionists offer all praise, honor, and glory to their Creator:
“We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth.” (Vladimir Lenin quoted in Communism versus Creation, Francis Nigel Lee, 1969, p. 28)
“The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be.” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 4)
Evolutionary Humanism has demonstrated itself to be an extremely dangerous worldview. In just the first eighty-seven years of the twentieth century, the evolutionist project of radically transforming the world and mankind through the power of evolutionism has led to the extermination of between 100-170 million ‘subhuman’ men, women, and children.
Deadly Problems
First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. This view demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases. Over time this results in a lawless climate haunted by bullies, predators, despots, psychopaths, and other unsavory elements.
Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas. Nonetheless, he did have some inkling, for he wrote in his “Autobiography” that one who rejects God,
“…can have for his rule of life…those impulses and instincts which are strongest or…seem to him the best ones.” (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p.7)
Humanist Max Hocutt realizes that materialist ethics are hugely problematical, but offers no solution. An absolute moral code cannot exist without God, however God does not exist, says Hocutt. Therefore,
“…if there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no reason why we should obey it. Human beings may, and do, make up their own rules.” (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 138-139)
Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwin’s advice. In an interview he said,
“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then…what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought…I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime.” (Dahmer in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 11/29/1994)
With clearly religious overtones, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell summarizes the amoral materialist ethic:
“Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” (Russell, “Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” 1957, p. 115)
Next, materialist epistemology and metaphysics dispossesses man of soul, free will, conscience, mind, and reason, thereby dehumanizing (animalizing) man and totally destroying not only the worth, dignity, and meaning of human life, but the possibility of freedom. The essence of this annihilation is captured in the following quotes:
Man is “but fish made over…” declared biologist William Etkin (Pushing the Antithesis, Greg L. Bahnsen, p. 224). And his life is but a “partial, continuous, progressive, multiform and continually interactive, self-realization of the potentialities of atomic electron states,” explained J.D. Bernal (1901-1971), past Professor of Physics at the University of London (The Origin of Life, Bernal, 1967, xv). Furthermore, “The universe cares nothing for us,” trumpets William Provine, Cornell University Professor of Biology, “and we have no ultimate meaning in life.” (Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist, Sept. 1988)
Man... “must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable of only animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself…as capable of ‘spiritual endurance,’ or nobility.” By animalizing man his “state of mind…can be ordered and enslaved.” (Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, “Degradation and Shock,” Chapter viii)
Finally, Evolutionary Humanism posits the notion that despite the fact that man is “but fish made over…” there are in fact, some exceptions to this rule. For it happens---by chance of course---that some lucky ‘species’ and ‘races’ of the human animal are more highly evolved (superior) and therefore enlightened than the others, who are---unluckily for them---less evolved and as a consequence, subhuman. Paired to this view is the idea that if a species or race does not continue to evolve (progress up the evolutionary ladder), it will become extinct. Together, these ideas lead logically to the deadly conclusion that in order to preserve the fittest of the species---or the spiritually evolved, as is the case with Spiritual Communism--- it is morally incumbent upon the superior to replace (via the science of eugenics and population control) and/or liquidate the subhumans. In his book, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” (1871) Charles Darwin foresaw this eventuality:
“At some future period…the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated.” (Descent, 2nd ed., p. 183)
In practice, the materialist worldview is a hellish recipe for catastrophe, as was amply demonstrated by the 20th century’s two most blood-soaked political movements--- pagan Nazism and atheist Communism. Both rejected God, and both were animated by Darwinism
Nazi Germany
Hitler’s murderous philosophy was built on Darwinian evolution and preservation of favored species. In his book, “Evolution and Ethics, British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith notes,
“The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice.” (1947, p.230)
It was Darwinism that inspired Hitler to try to create---by way of eugenics--- a superior race, the Aryan Man. In pursuit of his ambition, Hitler eliminated what he considered were inferior human animals, among which were for example, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and Christians.
Evolutionism in Nazi Germany resulted in gas chambers, ovens, and the liquidation of eleven million “useless eaters” and other undesirables. Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, author of “Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life,” reluctantly concurs. Darwin’s theory, he acknowledges,
“has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis.” (2005, p. 13)
The Soviet Union
Even though Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his “On the Species,” the roots of Communism are nonetheless found in Darwinism. Karl Marx wrote Fredrich Engels that Darwin’s ‘Origin’,
“is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view.” (Marxian Biology and the Social Scene, Conway Zirkle, 1959)
Stephane Courtois, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, relates that,
“In Communism there exists a sociopolitical eugenics, a form of Social Darwinism.” (p. 752)
Vladimir Lenin exulted that,
“Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another (and) that they were created by God, and hence immutable.” (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p. 9)
Lenin exercised godlike power over life and death. He saw himself as, “the master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species.” It was Lenin who “decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history.” From the moment Lenin made the “scientific” decision that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that evolution had surpassed, “its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.” (The Black Book of Communism, p. 752)
Alain Brossat draws the following conclusions about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the ties that bind them:
“The ‘liquidation’ of the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the ‘treatment’ carried out by Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was in full view on the Soviet Stage. The value of human life collapsed, and thinking in categories replaced ethical thought…In the discourse and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization of Other…was closely linked to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably hierarchical racial terms of “subhumans” and “supermen”…but in Moscow in 1937, what mattered…was the total animalization of the Other, so that a policy under which absolutely anything was possible could come into practice.” (ibid, p. 751)
21st Century America
Ronald Reagan loved God and America. America he said is, “the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul into bondage.” (Republican National Convention, Houston TX, 8/17/1992)
Even though he was optimistic about America’s future he nevertheless cautioned that America must maintain her reliance on God and her commitment to righteousness and morality. He liked quoting Alexis de Tocqueville’s insightful analysis of the source of America’s greatness:
“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret and genius of her power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (In the Words of Ronald Reagan, by Michael Reagan)
As America moves into the 21st century, we have yet to admit a shameful, dark secret. Evolutionism…the creation myth, that empowered Nazism and Communism, is being taught to America’s youth in our government-controlled schools. The animalization of Americans is well advanced and coupled to a corresponding slow collapse of human worth. Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as ‘vegetable,’ “non-persons,” and ‘uterine content.’
Ominously, Evolutionary Humanism has also outstripped Judeo-Christian precepts in our universities, judiciary, federal bureaucracy, corporations, medicine, law, psychology, sociology, entertainment, news media and halls of Congress. As Biocentrism it fuels the nonhuman animal rights project, the gay rights movement, radical feminism, and the increasingly powerful and influential green environmentalist program, which demands that America submit to the draconian mandates of the Kyoto Treaty.
America, the “moral force that defeated communism” is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.
Evolutionary Humanism is the most dangerous delusion thus far in history. It begins with the ‘animalization of Other,’ in tandem with the elevation of the ‘superior,’ for whom this serves as a license to make up their own rules, abuse power, and force their will onto the citizens. This is accompanied by a downward spiraling process that pathologizes the natural order, moral ethics, virtue, and social taboos while simultaneously elevating narcissism, tyranny, cruelty, nihilism, confusion, perversion, sadism, theft, and lying to positions of politically correct “new morality,” which is then enforced through sensitivity training, speech codes, hate crime laws, and other intimidation tactics. If not stopped, as history warns us, this rapidly escalating downward process leads inevitably to totalitarianism, enslavement, and eventually mass murder.
In a portent of things to come, evolutionist B.F. Skinner said:
“A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual…is henceforth to be controlled…in large part by other men.” (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 232)
Copyright Linda Kimball 2007 www.patriotsandliberty.com/
Linda is the author of many published essays on culture, worldview, and politics. Her essays are published both nationally and internationally. She is a member of MoveOff.org
Interesting. I never noticed that before, although I read it a bazillion (well not quite) times.
tactical...You’re arguing that they’re establishing a “logical consistency” based on “chance and continuous change”.
Irish...Absolutely! And here’s the catch tactical...there’s not supposed to be anything ‘logical’ about a ‘chance and continuous change’ system-—yet there it is. And why? Because evolutionary humanism is a phantasmagoria of massive narcissism, fantasy, deception, outright lies, delusion, wishful thinking, imagination-gone-wild, and hypocrisy.
Although for the wrong reason, you did finally see it. Congratulations.
Although for the wrong reason, you did finally see it. Congratulations.
Apparently you've finally figured out the only way you can win an argument is if you get to argue both sides of it.
I’m trying to figure why he pinged me to witness idiocy.
Maybe he's a dyslexhibitionist.
Haven't you read anything by Haeckel or J. Huxley? Watch my FR page, I'll get around to putting all that up there.
This thread is about dead, I think, but I’ll go ahead and post here anyway. I’m sorry it took me so long to respond — I’ve a newly minted “crawler” who is getting into everything and making it hard for me to spend any substantial time on “grown up” stuff. Post a response here, or feel free to send me an email if you’d like to continue this conversation any further.
Anyway:
You said, back at Post 448: “Evolution does not predict that the algorithm would produce the same results on a second run, so evolution is not obligated to explain the exact list of things currently alive. All that evolution seeks to describe is the process by which a branching tree forms.”
I disagree. You assume that evolution is a simple mathematical exercise in algorithm development. We have the algorithm and the rules, and the outcome is irrelevant because assuming that the rules are true then the outcome — whatever it may be — must be true. Further, you assume that evolution is a “one-shot” algorithm - its rules are valid only for one run, so the algorithm only has to run one time and is under no obligation to repeat itself. It couldn’t be more simple than that.
My observation - -and therefore, the assumption driving the process of scientific inquiry — is that we have an outcome, and that any attempt to describe it must be able to successfully reproduce it. Therefore, we are not starting with abiogenesis — where time=zero and and then simply conducting a mathematical exercise that does not care about the outcome. Rather, evolutionary theory is about starting with now and working backward (e.g. through morphology studies, genetic studies, etc.) and forward (e.g. through archaeology and paleontology) to prove the outcome.
That’s not about algorithm development and rule sets. That’s a modeling effort. In this application, they are very different.
And, as I’ve been saying, thus far not only have our attempts to develop the model failed but so too have our attempts to find all of the variables, rates, and validation data needed to even run it.
And despite this, despite the fact that evolutionary science — and I use the term with skepticism — has failed to meet even the minimum requirements of the scientific method, we have adopted it as the unifying theory for all of biology.
And, broadening the scope, because popular culture has embraced science as some sort of false god, not only is evolutionary theory the unifying theory for biology but it has been misappropriated for use as some sort of “personal” unifying theory to explain all sorts of things it was never intended to explain — the origin of life, meaning, purpose, yada yada yada.
So is weather. Evolution and weather are physical phenomena that require no supernatural interventions, but outcomes diverge quickly based on initial conditions.
I agree that models of evolution are not adequate to explain or replicate every feature of life. I draw no philosophical conclusion from that. Do you?
I see attempts by some to conclude from the inability to explain everything right now, the argument that the methods and assumptions of science are wrong. The problem with this argument is that there is no point in the history of science in which this could not be argued. It is the time honored trick of placing dragons on unexplored regions of the map. Or asserting that there are things mankind was not meant to know.
“...I agree that models of evolution are not adequate to explain or replicate every feature of life. I draw no philosophical conclusion from that. Do you? ...”
As to your question to me: I suppose so. Without suggesting that science is a means through which I justify or validate my belief in God, or my faith in the inerrancy of His word and the Creation account, I suppose that one philosophical basis for my criticisms of the notion of evolution is that I have observed an array of deliberate functional relationships between living form and inanimate features in nature that could not exist outside of the presence of an external, controlling designer. The failure of evolutionary theory to yet accomplish a satisfactory accounting of life today is, then, not surprising to me.
My question to you, then: If evolution is not adequate to explain or replicate every feature of life...then (assuming for a moment that you have curiosity about such things) what is it that you believe does? Anything? Nothing? Is “nothing” itself an answer for you? I am curious about what you believe.
If true, that would make you unique among all people. Behe, who has a genuine PhD in the relevant subject, and is a tenured professor, could not list any such features while testifying as an expert witness under oath.
You ask me what I believe. I believe, along with St. Augustine, that when well established science appears to contradict a literal reading of scripture, that the reading and interpretation need to be adjusted. I share his belief that when Christians and Muslims deny that the earth moves, or the earth orbits the sun, or that the earth is billions of years old, or that living things are all related by descent, then religion looks foolish, and the people making religion look foolish are destroying the thing they claim to protect.
Incidently, qualified people like Behe, do not deny common descent.
Evolution is possible, isn't it?
As to irreducible complexity, complexity is apparently easy to achieve. Turing showed that in 1936, and Wolfram showed pictures a few years ago. Five lines of code could produce the entire universe.
nope....can't defy God forever and placing faith in Messianic Humanism does just that
Which is enough to prove that "every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers" is false.
my father was one of 12 children, eleven of whom lived and married
Which is enough to refute both Mayr's assertion "all the individuals of a population... are exposed to the adversity of the environment, and almost all of them perish or fail to reproduce" and your assertion: "the process of reproduction creates far more offspring than survive to reproduce."
I am not at all unique in my ability to observe the obvious, and I am hardly the first person with a natural sciences background to criticize the notion of evolution.
“...Behe, who has a genuine PhD in the relevant subject, and is a tenured professor, could not list any such features while testifying as an expert witness under oath...”
I’m familiar with Behe, and I’m sure that he testified in conformance with what he believes to be true. But possessing a PhD does not, in and of itself, qualify anyone to serve as an accurate guide to true north on any topic.
You also mentioned that when asked for his “expert opinion” in court, Behe could not come up with any discrepancies in evolutionary theory of the sort that I mentioned in my previous post.
The implication seems to be that Behe must have been telling the truth because not only does he possess a PhD but he was under oath and swore to tell the truth...the whole truth, so help him God. That’s an interesting and somewhat ironic thing for you to put your trust in, arguing as you have from a position that does not recognize God as a transcendent source of ultimate and unchanging truth.
“...I believe, along with St. Augustine, that when well established science appears to contradict a literal reading of scripture, that the reading and interpretation need to be adjusted...”
This is perhaps the crux of our disagreement. It is a disagreement, first and foremost, of world view. You follow the secular line of thought that there is a dichotomy between science and religion (e.g. “Science does not deal with God”), and appear to follow the naturalistic assertion that nature is all that exists, life arose from chance, evolving eventually into life as we have it today. A consequence of your beliefs is that faith in a transcendent God is not rational, and that when it comes to questions about the world it is science that will reveal objective facts and that these facts represent ultimate truth.
I have elsewhere been clear that my faith is in God and that I am a Christian, so I am obligated to disagree with you. Belief in God is actually quite rational, although Christians today generally do a very poor job of arguing that and many buy into the “false dichotomy” argument and allow their faith to be compartmentalized and thus marginalized. But genuine Christianity is a complete world view: it is a way of seeing and comprehending _all_ reality.
This has a profound impact on scientific inquiry. To paraphrase from a book I am reading right now: The scriptural basis for understanding Christianity to be a comprehensive world view is the Creation account - everything that exists comes into being at his command and is therefore subject to him, finding its purpose and meaning in him. God created the natural world and natural laws, just as God created our minds and the laws of logic and imagination.
The implication is that in every topic we investigate, the truth is found only in relationship to God and his revelation. Thus, the assertion that science -- a term that collectively embraces the means through which humanity exercises its curiosity about the natural world -- is ever really independent of the relationship between people and God is an illusion. Similarly, the claim that “science does not deal with God” and the claim that others make acknowledging the role of a transcendent God in creation is irrational is false. In point of fact, Christ is actually referred to as the “logos” in the original Greek of the New Testament -- literally, Christ is the idea, the word, the rational pattern of creation, the order of the universe.
So, while many Christian scientists have unfortunately bought in to the secular and postmodern notion that Christianity can be or should be reduced to mere religious practice or observance, a proper understanding of and application of biblical teaching compels the Christian scientist to understand Christianity as the all encompassing-truth, the light in which everything else is seen and understood.
Thus, your quote -- while perfectly in accordance with a secular and postmodern world view -- is incompatible with a biblical world view because it suggests that biblical revelation about creation should be subject to revision and reinterpretation according to the vagaries of human revelation.
"...Incidently, qualified people like Behe, do not deny common descent..."
From what you have said so far, you’ve made it pretty clear that you place a great deal of faith in the ability of science -- and its pantheon of august intellectual bright lights -- to reveal truth. A Biblical world view means recognizing that people are fallible and that they are not the ultimate source of truth. Thus, I cannot and do not share your faith. While I have met or known many well-educated, articulate, and even visionary scientists, their observations and assertions of truth must always be held up in light of God’s greater wisdom.
Consistent with his character, God has clearly and undeniably organized the natural world according to law and order. As I have said elsewhere, common descent -- which is predicated upon the chaos inherent to evolutionary theory and contradicts the biblical creation account -- is not compatible with God’s revealed word or his character. Thus, it is not God's revelation that must be reconsidered but rather humanity's errant efforts to understand it through the secular lens of evolutionary theory and common descent.
Nor are you the first person on these threads to make a lonng post without saying anything.
Lets have your "obvious" list of structures that couldn't have arisen through evolution.
As to your complaint about “long posts”: I'm sorry but this one is quite long, too. For my part, I’ve little time for posts so I prefer to be thorough the first time. Further, this is an important topic and I’m not interested in a conversation that needs to be cut into bite-sized pieces. Unless I’ve overestimated you, I suspect you can handle it.
------
In no particular order, here are several observations that I believe make the current body of evolutionary theory flawed and the notion of “evolution by random forces” a “non-starter”:
1. The problem of abiogenesis.
There are several well-known experiments that have shown that it is possible to produce amino acids -- and therefore the building blocks of life -- in lab conditions. However, all such efforts have required vigorous controls; thus, even the most successful “origin of life” experiments have really told us nothing about what happens under natural conditions. Furthermore, none has successfully dealt with the issue of “chirality”. Finally, while many have tried, no one has developed a plausible explanation for proto-cellular development that would account for the leap from non-life to life while still remaining within the bounds of known physical and chemical laws.
2. The problem of “vanishingly small” chances.
Computer analysis using information theory has shown that the probability of evolution by chance processes is essentially zero, no matter how long the time scale. The work of Murray Eden, Marcel Schutzenberger, and others, as presented at the Wistar Institute in 1966, all showed quite clearly that the complexity of the biochemical world could not have originated by chance even within the time span of ten billion years. These findings have since been refined and confirmed by application of the first and second laws of thermodynamics to living systems. As Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel Prize-winning thermodynamicist, put it: “The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.”Let me repeat that: Vanishingly. Small.
3. The problem of DNA
Naturalism and evolutionary theory require that the complex-yet-orderly arrangement of DNA information that comprises living things must arise by natural forces alone, and that it can be explained only in terms of physical-chemical laws. But information theory has consistently shown that both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has very high information content. In fact, the amount of biological information contained in DNA that is required to construct even a simple organism is staggering. Studies using information theory have shown that it would be impossible -- again, in the absence of vigorous external control -- to construct a simple set of instructions for synthesizing even the simplest form of bacteria. Essentially, there are no known natural laws capable of creating a structure like DNA with high information content.
4. The problem of variation.
Classical Darwinism asserts that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation suffices to explain the diversity and complexity of life. However, it is a commonly accepted observation that variation does not in fact produce novel types of organisms (this includes selective breeding), and that Darwinian natural selection cannot account for macro-scale complexity. Further, it is also accepted that all variation occurs around a mean, organisms tend to stay true to type, and species tend to appear in the fossil record fully formed and unchanged from their modern counterparts.
5. The problem with relying on mutation.
As I just noted, it is commonly accepted that genetic variation cannot account for major change because variation is simply the reordering of material that is already present -- e.g. a child will always tends to resemble its parents. The only new source of genetic variation is, thus, mutation. There are two major problems with invoking mutation as the primary causal agent driving the massive amounts of change that would be required to progress from simple unicellular to complex multicellular life forms: 1) mutation is quite rare; 2) while mutation may sometimes be neutral in its effect, it is seldom ever beneficial. Mutation -- a chance, rare, often fatally flawed event -- cannot account for the diversity and complexity of life forms living today or in the fossil record. Yet it is still considered to be the spark that ignites the evolutionary engine.
6. The Cambrian problem.
Neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium have each tried to accommodate the above observations via various contortions of natural selection and other principles of classical Darwinism. But consideration of the Cambrian explosion alone repudiates both the claims of neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium. Cambrian fossils have no transitional intermediates linking them to previous time periods, and all display morphological features that have no clear precedent. Considering that the Cambrian fossil record includes the 1st appearance of over 40 separate phyla (the highest taxa in the animal kingdom) and accounts for approximately 2/3 of the body plans seen on earth today, this is a substantial problem for evolutionary theory.
7. The problem of non-evolution.
There are hundreds of known examples of living fossils. These organisms represent both warm- and cold-blooded animals, plants (including both angiosperms and gymnosperms), and insects, and they occupy a wide range of niches. The ancestors of these organisms did encounter events and conditions that should have triggered at least one or more of the 4 mechanisms that drive all evolutionary change. For example, the KT boundary event, various glacial and interglacial periods, continental drift, intercontinental changes in habitat and macro-/micro-scale climate resulting from ongoing orogenic activity and changing hydrology are all events that these “living fossils” have survived without any change. Yet, they are all events that had impact across multiple spatial and temporal scales and which should have produced countless opportunities for migration, genetic drift, and/or natural selection to have occurred. But, the ancestral chain of hundreds of organisms today went through those occurrences completely unchanged.
8. The problem of missing miscreants in the family tree
From a common ancestor we are to believe we now have oak trees, bacteria, fish, and people. Ignoring the massive pileup of improbabilities resulting from the above observations for a moment, such a feat would have required an exponential increase in complex life forms. Given the importance of mutation in the process, such expansion should have been accompanied by a tremendous number of “false starts” -- those necessary intermediary organisms with mutant features that didn’t survive the “selective cut”. In every single branch of the phylogenetic tree there should be a related chain of unsuccessful false starts and miscreants somewhere in the fossil record. To date, no such evidence has been found.
9. The problem of fitness.
Some of the living fossil species have had hundreds of millions of years to deal with the challenge of “survival of the fittest”. And yet, some of these species are hardly the “fittest” of their group. For example, the Quercus genus is known for its ability to suppress the growth of other nearby species. After 100 min years, “survival of the fittest” would predict that the oak trees reproducing today would be as fit as they could be -- meaning, they would not only be efficient at suppressing other plant growth, but they would also be extremely efficient in their reproductive strategy and therefore dominant where ever they occur. But oaks are actually not very good competitors and in healthy plant communities, they exist in mixed settings not huge monocultures.
10. The problem of the Ouroboros.
Finally, functional relationships between form and external environment -- for example, mimicry and camouflage -- are all over creation, but they cannot be accounted for by mutation (which, again, is rare, accidental, and usually harmful). There is plenty of discussion out there about the role of co-evolution and/or convergent evolutionary processes in explaining these phenomena, but despite lofty language they do come up short. Achievement of, for example, protocryptic character requires an “awareness” of external environment and control over genetic expression of expressed morphology and other features that is impossible (not mention silly to suggest unless you’re into biosemiotics) through mutation. The character of these relationships precludes their development from a chaotic and random process that is centered at the genetic level and which is under the control of nothing more than chance mutation and which has no awareness, either of the external environment or of the impact of its own activity on the organism.
So, for all that I expect complete disagreement from you given that we are diametrically opposed on the most basic issues, I suppose there’s a list for you.
A problem for chemistry, and one that has made quite a bit of progress. What is the alternative?
2. The problem of “vanishingly small” chances.
No one asserts that biodiversity arose through chance. Change and diversity arises through variation, superfecundity and selection. Variation merely explores the limited universe of changes possible at any given moment -- a number possible to observe in laboratory experiments.
The problem of small chances assumes that variation has a prespecified goal. No one has ever observed such a tendency, and lots of people have looked.
Essentially, there are no known natural laws capable of creating a structure like DNA with high information content.
The origination of DNA is the problem of biogenesis. Once replicators exist, variation, superfecundity and selection comprise an algorithm that could be describes as intelligent. Hubert Yockey, the most influential writer in this field, has investigated this process at length. He would agree with you that the origin of life is an unsolvable problem, but he also asserts that common descent via Darwinian processes has been proven beyond doubt.
4. The problem of variation.
This is an interesting claim, since the first paper on natural selection was titled, On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type, written not by Darwin, but by Wallace, in 1858. Your claim is rubbish. Reversion to the mean only affects large populations that never get separated into separate breeding populations.
5. The problem with relying on mutation.
Your paragraph is factually wrong at every point. Mutations are common. Statistically speaking, you carry several alleles not carried by either of your parents. Living and developing systems are not so fragile that change automatically causes death. Most changes in alleles produce subtle somatic changes, exactly the kind of change required by evolution.
Not that death is uncommon. Sperm cells are the product of many more generations of divisions than egg cells and have more mutations. The majority are non functional. Less than one in a billion are capable of fertilizing an egg. In humans, as many as two thirds of conceptions are naturally aborted. Superfecundity and selection.
6. The Cambrian problem.
Creationist rubbish. As more fossils are found it becomes obvious that most phyla predate the Cambrian. The problem with dating the first appearance of body plans is that accent life forms had no hard parts to fossilize.
The rest of your list just repeats previous arguments from incredulity. Basically, if you aren't smart enough to deduce the origin of things from first principles, then you are obviously smarter than all the tens of thousands of biologists who have ever lived. Quite a claim.
We now hear less about “irreducible complexity,” with good reason. In “Darwin’s Black Box,” Behe simply asserted without justification that particular biological structures (like the bacterial flagellum, the tiny propeller by which bacteria swim) needed all their parts to be in place before they would work, and therefore could not have evolved incrementally. This style of argument remains as unconvincing as when Darwin himself anticipated it. It commits the logical error of arguing by default. Two rival theories, A and B, are set up. Theory A explains loads of facts and is supported by mountains of evidence. Theory B has no supporting evidence, nor is any attempt made to find any. Now a single little fact is discovered, which A allegedly can’t explain. Without even asking whether B can explain it, the default conclusion is fallaciously drawn: B must be correct. Incidentally, further research usually reveals that A can explain the phenomenon after all: thus the biologist Kenneth R. Miller (a believing Christian who testified for the other side in the Dover trial) beautifully showed how the bacterial flagellar motor could evolve via known functional intermediates.Behe correctly dissects the Darwinian theory into three parts: descent with modification, natural selection and mutation. Descent with modification gives him no problems, nor does natural selection. They are “trivial” and “modest” notions, respectively. Do his creationist fans know that Behe accepts as “trivial” the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?
The crucial passage in “The Edge of Evolution” is this: “By far the most critical aspect of Darwin’s multifaceted theory is the role of random mutation. Almost all of what is novel and important in Darwinian thought is concentrated in this third concept.”
What a bizarre thing to say! Leave aside the history: unacquainted with genetics, Darwin set no store by randomness. New variants might arise at random, or they might be acquired characteristics induced by food, for all Darwin knew. Far more important for Darwin was the nonrandom process whereby some survived but others perished. Natural selection is arguably the most momentous idea ever to occur to a human mind, because it — alone as far as we know — explains the elegant illusion of design that pervades the living kingdoms and explains, in passing, us. Whatever else it is, natural selection is not a “modest” idea, nor is descent with modification.
But let’s follow Behe down his solitary garden path and see where his overrating of random mutation leads him. He thinks there are not enough mutations to allow the full range of evolution we observe. There is an “edge,” beyond which God must step in to help. Selection of random mutation may explain the malarial parasite’s resistance to chloroquine, but only because such micro-organisms have huge populations and short life cycles. A fortiori, for Behe, evolution of large, complex creatures with smaller populations and longer generations will fail, starved of mutational raw materials.
If mutation, rather than selection, really limited evolutionary change, this should be true for artificial no less than natural selection. Domestic breeding relies upon exactly the same pool of mutational variation as natural selection. Now, if you sought an experimental test of Behe’s theory, what would you do? You’d take a wild species, say a wolf that hunts caribou by long pursuit, and apply selection experimentally to see if you could breed, say, a dogged little wolf that chivies rabbits underground: let’s call it a Jack Russell terrier. Or how about an adorable, fluffy pet wolf called, for the sake of argument, a Pekingese? Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard? Behe has to predict that you’d wait till hell freezes over, but the necessary mutations would not be forthcoming. Your wolves would stubbornly remain unchanged. Dogs are a mathematical impossibility.
Don’t evade the point by protesting that dog breeding is a form of intelligent design. It is (kind of), but Behe, having lost the argument over irreducible complexity, is now in his desperation making a completely different claim: that mutations are too rare to permit significant evolutionary change anyway. From Newfies to Yorkies, from Weimaraners to water spaniels, from Dalmatians to dachshunds, as I incredulously close this book I seem to hear mocking barks and deep, baying howls of derision from 500 breeds of dogs — every one descended from a timber wolf within a time frame so short as to seem, by geological standards, instantaneous.
If correct, Behe’s calculations would at a stroke confound generations of mathematical geneticists, who have repeatedly shown that evolutionary rates are not limited by mutation. Single-handedly, Behe is taking on Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith and hundreds of their talented co-workers and intellectual descendants. Notwithstanding the inconvenient existence of dogs, cabbages and pouter pigeons, the entire corpus of mathematical genetics, from 1930 to today, is flat wrong. Michael Behe, the disowned biochemist of Lehigh University, is the only one who has done his sums right. You think?
The best way to find out is for Behe to submit a mathematical paper to The Journal of Theoretical Biology, say, or The American Naturalist, whose editors would send it to qualified referees. They might liken Behe’s error to the belief that you can’t win a game of cards unless you have a perfect hand. But, not to second-guess the referees, my point is that Behe, as is normal at the grotesquely ill-named Discovery Institute (a tax-free charity, would you believe?), where he is a senior fellow, has bypassed the peer-review procedure altogether, gone over the heads of the scientists he once aspired to number among his peers, and appealed directly to a public that — as he and his publisher know — is not qualified to rumble him.
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.