~~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