End of Darwinism?

From: M.A. Johnson (michaelj@america.net)
Date: Thu Oct 26 2000 - 18:16:11 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Baylor's dismissal of Polyani Center director Dembski was not a smart move"

    ~~for educational purposes only~~
    [Title 17 U.S.C. section 107]

    End of Darwinism?
    Philip Gold

    In 1962, an historian of science named Thomas Kuhn published
    a book titled, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." He argued
    that science (and, when you get down to it, most everything else)
    works on the basis of paradigms, of general notions of The Way
    It Is. Study concentrates on validating, expanding, and tidying the
    dominant paradigm. Gradually, however, anomalies, discrepancies
    and contradictions begin to accumulate. The paradigm breaks
    down; another takes its place in a paradigm shift. The process
    begins again. The Earth is the center of the universe. The sun is
    the center of the universe. The universe has no center. And on
    and on.

    At the moment, the various paradigms provided by the scientists
    and allegedly scientific thinkers of the 19th and early 20th
    century West are failing: this is the necessary prelude to the
    next set of shifts. Karl Marx has been consigned to the trash
    compactor of history. Sigmund Freud has been composted.
    Albert Einstein is in trouble. (The speed of light isn't constant,
    and may have been exceeded recently in, of all places, New
    Jersey.) Of the great thinkers who fashioned the modern
    worldview, only one — Charles Darwin — remains inviolable.
    To question is to invite automatic dismissal as a religious
    wacko, a low-dull-normal ignoramus, or both. And if you
    are a scientist, don't expect a lot of establishment
    funding . . . or cocktail party invitations.

    This is odd. Evolutionary materialism — the belief that life
    arose and evolved by chance — is, after all, a mid-19th
    century notion. Since then, this paradigm has remained,
    by modern scientific standards, virtually stagnant. The
    missing links and vital fossil records have not been found.
    The list of things the paradigm can't explain, from the
    Cambrian Explosion and Chinese fossil records to the
    incredible and irreducible complexity of a single cell, keeps
    growing. And now comes Jonathan Wells to show that many
    of the traditional proofs of Darwinian evolution are at best
    open to multiple interpretations, and are at worst . . . faked.

    Jonathan Wells holds two Ph.D.s, one in biology from the
    University of California-Berkeley and one in religious
    studies from Yale. He is a senior fellow of the Center for
    the Renewal of Science and Culture at the Seattle-based
    Discovery Institute (with which I am also affiliated) and
    one of the luminaries of the emerging Intelligent Design
    movement: the scientific attempt to study evidence of
    intelligent design in the physical and biological realms
    without asserting either the identity or the intent of the
    designer. Many of the movement's scientists hold strong
    religious beliefs and attempt to draw cultural and theological
    implications out of the work. But the fundamental issue here
    is scientific truth, and the movement will stand or fall as
    science.

    Mr. Wells is a member of the Intelligent Design movement,
    but concentrates on Darwinism. It's a longstanding interest.
    As a graduate student in embryology, Mr. Wells noticed
    that evolutionary biology textbooks misrepresented the
    development of vertebrate embryos. Now he has a new
    book out, "Icons of Evolution" (Regnery) that dissects
    10 commonly invoked evidences for Darwinian evolution.
    "Writing the book," he says, "I felt like a dentist going
    into a very bad mouth. The more I dug, the more rot I
    found."

    "Icons of Evolution" is a meticulous book, intended for
    a general readership. He starts with an unassailable
    premise: Testing theories against the evidence never
    ends. If a theory cannot hold up against the evidence,
    it must be altered or discarded. No exceptions. He then
    works through the icons, from the Darwinian Tree of
    Life to peppered moths and embryos and finch beaks.
    With each passing chapter, Darwinian evolution looks
    less like science and more like myth . . . or, more aptly,
    a paradigm in serious need of shifting.

    Why hasn't it happened? Many reasons. One is pure
    self-interest. The Darwinian High Priesthood stands to
    lose a great deal if they're wrong. Another is that
    Darwinian materialism is impossible to test empirically;
    evolutionary time is too long, past conditions too hard to
    define and/or reproduce. Reality caught up with Karl
    Marx's risky scheme. Ditto Freud and the
    psychobabble-infested civilization he did so much to
    spawn. Einstein's work can be, and is being, modified
    by empirical research. Evolution is not.

    But perhaps the greatest reason for Darwinism's survival
    is that, culturally, it's too useful for some folks to live
    without. It is a dandy way of thumping the Bible-thumpers.
    And if it is true we're nothing but accidental creatures,
    purely and merely physical and endowed with neither
    purpose nor rights, then anything goes. From anarchy
    to tyranny, from Jack Kevorkian to Britney Spears there
    are no standards, and therefore who is to judge?

    And yet, humans find it impossible to live without some
    sort of spirituality, leading to notions of dignity,
    purpose and rights. We know that, in some way or
    other, we're more than flesh. Materialism's official
    creed may be, "If it isn't matter, it doesn't matter."
    But it's also Carl Sagan's rapt, "We are the universe
    looking at itself."

    At the moment, Intelligent Design's in a deconstructionist
    mode. Destroying Darwinism does not automatically
    validate Genesis or any particular alternative. Will
    Intelligent Design ever achieve full paradigm status?
    Perhaps the day an article appears in some prestigious,
    peer-review journal, beginning: "We have discovered the
    identity and intent of the Intelligent Designer."

    Probably followed by, "And we've got some good news and
    some bad news."

    Until then, do read "Icons of Evolution" and the other
    fine books coming out of the Intelligent Design
    movement. You owe it to yourself.

    And to the universe.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 18:14:30 EDT